CASE LAWS ON ELECTRICITY - consumereducation.in · CASE LAWS ON ELECTRICITY SAPNA CHADAH Assistant...

i

CASE LAWSON

ELECTRICITY

SAPNA CHADAH

Assistant ProfessorIndian Institute of Public Administration

New Delhi

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONNEW DELHI

i i

Published under aegis of consultancy assignment. Promoting Involvement ofResearch Institutions/Universities/Colleges, etc., in Consumer Protection andConsumer Welfare

Sponsored by : The Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution, Government of India.

Published by Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi and Printed atNew United Process, A-26, Naraina Industrial Area, Ph-II, New Delhi, Ph. 25709125

© Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi 2005

Price Rs. 100/-

Consumer Case Laws Series –2

Series Editors :S.S. SinghRakesh GuptaSapna Chadah

iii

PREFACE

Electricity is an essential requirement in all facets of our life. It has become a basicneed. Continuous, reliable and quality supply to all consumers whether it is general public,big industrial unit or a rural agriculturist is must for the socio-economic upliftment of thenation and to maintain quality of life. This service sector has made significant contribution inthe growth of our economy, industrialization and betterment in the life style. Availability ofquality and sustained supply of electricity is crucial for sustained growth. Reform in thepower sector is no doubt challenging but it is one of the priorities of the present government.

The State Electricity Board (SEBs) and Electricity Departments are responsible forgeneration, transmission, supply and distribution of electric power. They are in the serviceof consumers from around five decades. SEBs have established a monopoly over thisservice sector leading to corruption, inefficiency and exploitation of consumers. What theconsumer expects from the public utility service provider is quality, efficient and hastle freeservice. There must be simple and transparent procedure for allotting connection, goodquality power supply, rectification of fault/breakdown at the earliest, efficient prompt billingsystem, proper and transparent method of tariff fixation and speedy redressal of disputes.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has provided an efficient and effective tool inthe hands of the consumers to fight for their rights. It not only covers matters relating togoods but also applies to deficiencies in services. ‘Electricity’ being one of the servicescovered under the CPA, the consumer has power to file complaint against any kind ofdeficiency in service on the part of Electricity Board. The District Forums, State Commissionsand National Commission - the three tier redressal mechanism under CPA has in a numberof cases rescued the harassed electricity consumers. They have provided quick and costeffective justice to the consumers in case of undue delay in release of connection, excessivebilling, defective meters, illegal disconnection, voltage fluctuation, tariff related grievancesetc.

The present work is a brief compilation of the judgments delivered by the SupremeCourt and the National Commission on various grievances of the consumers of electricity.This brings a summary of leading consumer cases relating to various kinds of deficienciesin the electricity sector in the period between 1995-2005. It is hoped that this series ofcase law compilation on Electricity will prove to be useful for Bench, Bar, ConsumerRelated Organisations, Researchers, Students and general public at large.

I am indeed grateful to the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of Indiaparticularly Shri L. Mansingh, Secretary, for his trust and confidence in the Institute and

iv

Mrs. Alka Sirohi, Additional Secretary, for her guidance and encouragement. I am alsothankful to Mrs. Rinchen Tempo, Joint Secretary for her active support, help and advice.My thanks are also due to other officials of the Department especially Shri G.N.Sreekumaran, Director, (CWF) and other members of the Evaluation Committee andMonitoring Committee respectively.

I express my heartfelt thanks to the management of IIPA especially His ExcellencyShri T.N. Chaturvedi, Governor of Karnataka and Chairman, Executive Council, Dr. K.Malaisamy, Chairman Standing Committee and Shri B.C. Mathur, Honorary Treasurer,IIPA, for their keen interest, encouragement and constructive suggestions. Dr. P.L. SanjeevReddy, Director, IIPA has always been supportive and helping. I am indeed thankful tohim. I am also thankful to Shri Sunil Dutt, Publication Officer, for his keen interest in thepublication of the series.

Before concluding I want to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. S.S. Singh,Project Director and Shri Rakesh Gupta, Associate Project Director, without their interest,guidance and continuous support this edition would not have come in this form. I am alsothankful to Shri Manohar Chauhan, IIPA Library, Shri Abhinav Walia, Shri Nitesh Aroraand other secretariat staff working in the project for their willing support and help.

Sapna Chadah

v

LIST OF CASES(Subjectwise)

PAGE

Preface iii

1. Delay in allotment /release of power connection

Alacrity Foundations (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard I (1995) CPJ 237 (NC) 172

Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors v. Bodan RamIV (2003) CPJ 101 (NC) 38

Genetic Industrial Gases (P) Ltd. v. The U.P. State Electricity Board &Ors.II (1995) CPJ 176 164

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bachan Singh III (1996) CPJ 79 (NC) 126

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Lila Ram IV (2005) CPJ 1 (NC) 8

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. K.L. Ramani 1995(1) CPR 334(NC) 182

P.J. Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board II (1995) CPJ 56 (NC) 168

Panchayati Akhara Nirmla v. Punjab State Electricity Board &Ors. I (2003)CPJ 77 (NC) 69

Punjab Electricity Board v. Pritpal Singh & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 14 (NC) 57

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors v. Tek Bahadur Singh I (2004)CPJ 125 (NC) 25

Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh & Ors. III (2005)CPJ 35 (SC) 10

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Zora Singh & 70 Ors. III (2003)CPJ 169 (NC) 47

U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Mona Confectionery Industries I(1996) CPJ 98 (NC) 155

2. Reduction / addition in Load

Ashok Kumar v. SDO, Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd & Anr. IV(2003) CPJ 57 (NC) 42

vi

Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. v. K.R. ManiIII (1995) CPJ 46 (NC) 159

Malee Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Ors. III (2003)CPJ 81 (NC) 51

Rasi Engineering Works v. Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation III(1995) CPJ 15 (NC) 161

3. Loss due to voltage fluctuations / power cuts/ interrupted / inadequatepower supply

Jaya Shree Insulators v. West Bengal State Electricity Board III (2002)CPJ 67 (NC) 83

Kanchenjunga Chemicals Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. I (1995)CPJ 138 (NC) 176

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raveendran IV (2003) CPJ 105 (NC) 36

M/s Kailash Chand Jain, Managing Director, M/s. Saraogi Oxygen Ltd.v.Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.2002(3) CPR 284(NC) 87

Raghuwar Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. &Others IV (2004) CPJ 78 (NC) 18

Sagar Rolling and Forgings and Ors. v. Maharashtra State ElectricityBoard I (2003) CPJ 156 (NC) 61

Travancore Oxygen Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board I (1997)CPJ 17 (NC) 120

4. Problems relating to billing

Gwalior Ice Factory v. M.P. Electricity Board III (2002) CPJ 262 (NC) 80

Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd v. Smt. Sharda Devi IV (2003) CPJ 7 (NC) 43

K.D. Sebastian v. The Electrical Inspector, Kerala State Electricity Board &Ors. II (2002) CPJ 2 (NC) 92

Karnataka Electricity Board now known as Karnataka PowerTransmission Corporation v. Dr. M. S. Shankar Bhat III (2002) CPJ 312 (NC) 75

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. M/s. Swastik Industries III(1996) CPJ 71 (NC) 128

PAGE

vii

Ram Niwas Parashar v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur2003 (1) CPR 193 (NC) 71

S.D.O, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Amrit Singh I (2002) CPJ 16 (NC) 94

Sadhan Mukerjee v. CESC Ltd. II (2003) CPJ 23 (NC) 55

Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hotel Maria I (2003)CPJ 101 (NC) 67

5. Damage due to electrocution / sparking /short circuit

Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division No. 11, Karnataka StateElectricity Board & Ors. v. Neelakanta Gouda Siddana Gouda Patil III(2002) CPJ 312 (NC) 74

Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Anand Medicos & Anr. III (2003)CPJ 175 (NC) 45

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Rattan Lal III (2002) CPJ 138 (NC) 82

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Smt. Ganga Devi 1997 (1) CPR 20(NC) 125

Karnataka State Electricity Board v. Smt. Sharavva & Ors. III (2002)CPJ 269 (NC) 78

6. Disruption of electricity for long durations

Kamla Prasad Tiwari v. Junior Engineer IV (2003) CPJ 108 (NC) 34

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU) v. Capt. V.K. Ramchandani1995 (1) CPR 677 (NC) 184

Shree Kumar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &Ors III (2004) C P J 23 (NC) 22

7. Meters related grievances

Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (I) Pvt.Ltd& Anr. II(2005) CPJ 6(SC) 13

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Tanuj Rashi Poultry Farm II (1996)CPJ 15 (NC) 144

Kailash Narain Khanna & Anr. v. The U.P. State Electricity Board &Ors.1996(3) CPR 47(NC) 133

Kamlesh Gaur & Ors. v. D.E.S.U. III (1996) CPJ 9 (NC) 131

PAGE

viii

M.P. Electricity Board v. Baboo Lal II (1995) CPJ 132 (NC) 166

NeelKamal Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board III (2002) CPJ 278 (NC) 76

P.S.E.B. Mohali v. Guriqbal Singh Batra 2002(3) CPR 173(NC) 89

Ruby Mushroom & Canning Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State ElectricityBoard IV (2005) CPJ 252 (NC) 3

8. Restoration of Connection

P. Jagadeesan v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board I (1998) CPJ 1 (NC) 109

Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Heera Ballabh Pant III (2004)CPJ 73 (NC) 20

9. Complaints regarding refunds

Faquir Chand v. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, HVPN I (2003) CPJ 260 (NC) 59

Girish Kumar Balubhai Choksi v. State of Gujarat through ChiefSecretary II (1999) CPJ 52 (NC) 99

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bhagwat Prasad I (2005) CPJ 104 (NC) 16

Jaipur Vidyut Viteran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashok Oil Industries2001 (3) CPR 102(NC) 97

The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), Chennai v. A.G. Swaminathan2002 (3) CPR 224 (NC) 88

10. Reasonableness of service line charges

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sheshrao Ajabrao Sherkar1995 (2) CPR 106 (NC) 170

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sheshrao I (1998) CPJ 94 (NC) 107

11. Illegal disconnection

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Kumar I (1996) CPJ 306 (NC) 148

Rajasthan State Electricity Board & anr. v. Ramrikh Vyas II (1996)CPJ 245 (NC) 138

12. Theft/ unauthorized load / unauthorized connection

C.E.S.C Ltd v. Smt. Sumita Pal III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC) 113

PAGE

ix

Guru Nanak Plastic Industries v. Chairman, Rajasthan State ElectricityBoard IV (2003) CPJ 89 (NC) 40

Haryana State Electricity Boardv. Laxman Singh 1(1995) CPJ 234 (NC) 174

Ram Chander v. Sub-Divisional Officer (OP) DHBVNL Rewari II (2003)CPJ 120 (NC) 53

13. Complaints regarding substitution of name

Asstt. Accounts Officer, GT/M.E.D.C./ Central & Anr v. M.R. Murali I (1995)CPJ 39 (NC) 180

Swapan Kumar Babu & Anr. v. Suniti Chattaraj & Anr. 1997(1) CPR 96(NC)123

14. Complaints with respect to shifting/ clubbing of connections

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd & Ors. v. Indraj IV (2003) CPJ 110 (NC) 32

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Jai Forging& Stampings (P) Ltd.,Yamuna Nagar II (1996) CPJ 148 (NC) 141

15. Complaints relating to concessional tarrifs/ rebate benefits

M/s Evershine Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board &Ors. II (1999) CPJ 6 (NC) 102

Real Food Products Ltd. & Ors. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.II (1996) CPJ 21 (SC) 135

16. Arrears due from earlier cosumer / benami coonection

Amit Products (India) Ltd. v. Chief Engineer (O & M) Circle & Anr. IV (2005)CPJ 30 (SC) 1

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dev Raj Vinayak I (1995) CPJ 124 (NC) 178

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. MEC Shotblasting EquipmentPvt. Ltd. II (1997) CPJ 62 (NC) 116

17. Others

Complaint for shifting of H.T. Line

Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. v. M. Abdul Hameed I(1996) CPJ 312 (NC) 146

PAGE

x

Intentional malicious act

R.R. Gopal @ R. Rajagopal v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board I(1996) CPJ 143 (NC) 151

Disconnection due to non payment of bills

Radharani Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa& Anr. I (2003) CPJ 140 (NC) 63

Change of Tariff plan

S. Kulandairajan v. Junior Engineer, Rural/North, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard & Anr. III (2002) CPJ 51 (NC) 85

Complaint regarding payment of Bay Charges

Sandila Metal Wires (P) Ltd. v. Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board& Ors. II (1998) CPJ 27 (NC) 105

Complaint regarding payment o Minimum Charges

Santokh Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board IV (2003) CPJ 146 (NC) 28

Outstanding Dues

Shankar Sah v. Electrical Executive Engineer IV (2005) CPJ 178 (NC) 6

Misuse of Connection

Vivek Thakur v. Karam Singh Banyal & Ors.III (2003) CPJ 168 (NC) 50

Miscellaneous

Guru Charan Dass v. AEE, Electricity Department & Ors. IV (2003)CPJ 138 (NC) 30

Jai Kumar & Anr. v. U.P.S.C.D.R.C. & Ors.2001 (3) CPR 187 (NC) 98

Jaidev Agarwal v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. II (1997)CPJ 117 (NC) 111

M/s. Doneria Iron & Steel v. The Chairman, UPSEB Power Corporation &Ors.2002 (3) CPR 156 (NC) 91

NEPA Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board I (2003) CPJ 138 (NC) 65

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. v. M/s New Pal Textiles2002 (1) CPR 56 (NC) 95

S.A. Raja v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. III (2002) CPJ 322 (NC) 72

PAGE

xi

LIST OF CASES(Alphabetical order)

PAGE

Judgments of Supreme Court

Amit Products (India) Ltd. v. Chief Engineer (O & M) Circle & Anr.IV (2005) CPJ 30 (SC) 1

Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (I) Pvt.Ltd& Anr. II(2005) CPJ 6(SC) 13

Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh & Ors.III (2005) CPJ 35 (SC) 10

Real Food Products Ltd. & Ors. v. A.P. State Electricity Board &Ors. II (1996) CPJ 21 (SC) 135

Judgments of National Commission

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd & Ors. v. Indraj IV (2003) CPJ 110 (NC) 32

Alacrity Foundations (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard I (1995) CPJ 237 (NC) 172

Ashok Kumar v. SDO, Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd & Anr. IV(2003) CPJ 57 (NC) 42

Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors v. Bodan Ram IV(2003) CPJ 101 (NC) 38

Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division No. 11, Karnataka StateElectricity Board & Ors. v. Neelakanta Gouda Siddana Gouda Patil III(2002) CPJ 312 (NC) 74

Asstt. Accounts Officer, GT/M.E.D.C./ Central & Anr v. M.R. Murali I (1995)CPJ 39 (NC) 180

C.E.S.C Ltd v. Smt. Sumita Pal III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC) 113

Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. v. M. Abdul Hameed I(1996) CPJ 312 (NC) 146

Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. v.K.R. Mani III (1995) CPJ 46 (NC) 159

Faquir Chand v. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, HVPN I (2003) CPJ 260 (NC) 59

xii

Genetic Industrial Gases (P) Ltd. v. The U.P. State Electricity Board &Ors. II (1995) CPJ 176 (NC) 164

Girish Kumar Balubhai Choksi v. State of Gujarat throughChief Secretary II (1999) CPJ 52 (NC) 99

Guru Charan Dass v. AEE, Electricity Department & Ors.IV (2003)CPJ 138 (NC) 30

Guru Nanak Plastic Industries v. Chairman, Rajasthan State ElectricityBoard IV (2003) CPJ 89 (NC) 40

Gwalior Ice Factory v. M.P. Electricity Board III (2002) CPJ 262 (NC) 80

Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Anand Medicos & Anr. III (2003)CPJ 175 (NC) 45

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bachan Singh III (1996) CPJ 79 (NC) 126

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bhagwat Prasad I (2005) CPJ 104 (NC) 16

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dev Raj Vinayak I (1995) CPJ 124 (NC) 178

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Jai Forging & Stampings (P) Ltd.,Yamuna Nagar II (1996) CPJ 148 (NC) 141

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Kumar I (1996) CPJ 306 (NC) 148

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Rattan Lal III (2002) CPJ 138 (NC) 82

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Smt. Ganga Devi 1997 (1) CPR 20(NC) 125

Haryana State Electricity Board v. Tanuj Rashi Poultry Farm II (1996)CPJ 15 (NC) 144

Haryana State Electricity Boardv. Laxman Singh 1(1995) CPJ 234 (NC) 174

Jai Kumar & Anr. v. U.P.S.C.D.R.C. & Ors.2001 (3) CPR 187 (NC) 98

Jaidev Agarwal v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. II (1997)CPJ 117 (NC) 111

Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd v. Smt. Sharda Devi IV (2003) CPJ 7 (NC) 43

Jaipur Vidyut Viteran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashok Oil Industries2001 (3) CPR 102(NC) 97

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Lila Ram IV (2005) CPJ 1 (NC) 8

Jaya Shree Insulators v. West Bengal State Electricity Board III (2002)CPJ 67 (NC) 83

PAGE

xiii

K.D. Sebastian v. The Electrical Inspector, Kerala State Electricity Board& Ors. II (2002) CPJ 2 (NC) 92

Kailash Narain Khanna & Anr. v. The U.P. State Electricity Board &Ors.1996(3) CPR 47(NC) 133

Kamla Prasad Tiwari v. Junior EngineerIV (2003) CPJ 108 (NC) 34

Kamlesh Gaur & Ors. v. D.E.S.U. III (1996) CPJ 9 (NC) 131

Kanchenjunga Chemicals Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. I (1995)CPJ 138 (NC) 176

Karnataka Electricity Board now known as KarnatakaPower Transmission Corporation v. Dr. M. S. Shankar Bhat III (2002)CPJ 312 (NC) 75

Karnataka State Electricity Board v. Smt. Sharavva & Ors. III (2002)CPJ 269 (NC) 78

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raveendran IV (2003) CPJ 105 (NC) 36

M.P. Electricity Board v. Baboo Lal II (1995) CPJ 132 (NC) 166

M/s Evershine Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board& Ors. II (1999) CPJ 6 (NC) 102

M/s Kailash Chand Jain, Managing Director, M/s. Saraogi Oxygen Ltd. v.Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.2002(3) CPR 284(NC) 87

M/s. Doneria Iron & Steel v. The Chairman, UPSEB Power Corporation &Ors.2002 (3) CPR 156 (NC) 91

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. M/s. Swastik Industries III (1996)CPJ 71 (NC) 128

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. K.L. Ramani 1995(1) CPR 334(NC) 182

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sheshrao Ajabrao Sherkar1995 (2) CPR 106 (NC) 170

Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sheshrao I (1998) CPJ 94 (NC) 107

Malee Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Ors. III (2003)CPJ 81 (NC) 51

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU) v. Capt. V.K. Ramchandani1995 (1) CPR 677 (NC) 184

PAGE

xiv

NeelKamal Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board III (2002) CPJ 278 (NC) 76

NEPA Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board I (2003) CPJ 138 (NC) 65

P. Jagadeesan v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board I (1998) CPJ 1 (NC) 109

P.J. Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board II (1995) CPJ 56 (NC) 168

P.S.E.B. Mohali v. Guriqbal Singh Batra 2002(3) CPR 173(NC) 89

Panchayati Akhara Nirmla v. Punjab State Electricity Board &Ors. I (2003)CPJ 77 (NC) 69

Punjab Electricity Board v. Pritpal Singh & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 14 (NC) 57

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors v. Tek Bahadur Singh I (2004)CPJ 125 (NC) 25

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Zora Singh & 70 Ors. III (2003)CPJ 169 (NC) 47

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. v. M/s New Pal Textiles2002 (1) CPR 56 (NC) 95

R.R. Gopal @ R. Rajagopal v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity BoardI (1996) CPJ 143 (NC) 151

Radharani Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa &Anr. I (2003) CPJ 140 (NC) 63

Raghuwar Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & OthersIV (2004) CPJ 78 (NC) 18

Rajasthan State Electricity Board & anr. v. Ramrikh Vyas II (1996)CPJ 245 (NC) 138

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. MEC Shotblasting EquipmentPvt. Ltd. II (1997) CPJ 62 (NC) 116

Ram Chander v. Sub-Divisional Officer (OP) DHBVNL Rewari II (2003)CPJ 120 (NC) 53

Ram Niwas Parashar v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur 2003 (1)CPR 193 (NC) 71

Rasi Engineering Works v. Commissioner, Coimbatore CorporationIII (1995) CPJ 15 (NC) 161

PAGE

xv

Ruby Mushroom & Canning Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity BoardIV (2005) CPJ 252 (NC) 3

S. Kulandairajan v. Junior Engineer, Rural/North, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard & Anr. III (2002) CPJ 51 (NC) 85

S.A. Raja v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. III (2002) CPJ 322 (NC) 72

S.D.O, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Amrit Singh I (2002) CPJ 16 (NC) 94

Sadhan Mukerjee v. CESC Ltd. II (2003) CPJ 23 (NC) 55

Sagar Rolling and Forgings and Ors. v. Maharashtra State ElectricityBoard I (2003) CPJ 156 (NC) 61

Sandila Metal Wires (P) Ltd. v. Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board &Ors. II (1998) CPJ 27 (NC) 105

Santokh Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board IV (2003) CPJ 146 (NC) 28

Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hotel Maria I (2003)CPJ 101 (NC) 67

Shankar Sah v. Electrical Executive Engineer IV (2005) CPJ 178 (NC) 6

Shree Kumar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &Ors III (2004) CPJ 23 (NC) 22

Swapan Kumar Babu & Anr. v. Suniti Chattaraj & Anr. 1997(1) CPR 96(NC)123

The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), Chennai v. A.G. Swaminathan2002 (3) CPR 224 (NC) 88

Travancore Oxygen Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board I (1997)CPJ 17 (NC) 120

U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Mona Confectionery Industries I(1996) CPJ 98 (NC) 155

Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Heera Ballabh Pant III (2004)CPJ 73 (NC) 20

Vivek Thakur v. Karam Singh Banyal & Ors.III (2003) CPJ 168 (NC) 50

Amit Products (India) Ltd. v. Chief Engineer (O & M)Circle & Anr.

IV (2005) CPJ 30 (SC)

Facts

The appellant/complainant, Amit Products (India) Ltd. was a companyincorporated in India and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956. It obtained Provisional Registration Certificate as a small-scale industry fromthe Director of Companies of Government of Maharashtra. The Director of theappellant company Shri Shridhar Nalekar filed an application for getting electricityconnection, which was rejected by the respondent Maharashtra State ElectricityBoard (MSEB). MSEB insisted on clearance of all arrears of electricity charges payableby M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd, which was the previous consumer. Theappellant company contended that they were not liable to pay the electricity chargespayable by M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. as the company was a distinct andseparate entity, which had nothing to do with M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.However, MSEB rejected the contention and did not provide electricity to theappellant company.

Aggrieved with that the appellant company filed a writ petition before theBombay High Court requesting for power supply to its factory contending that it isa separate company situated at a separate portion of the property and the insistenceof the MSEB to pay the arrears of electricity charges to be payable by M/s Amar AmitJalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the refusal to give supply was arbitrary and violative ofArticles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

The matter was elaborately considered by the High Court of Bombay and itwas held that the appellant company was seeking connection in respect of thesame premises, by the same consumer, under the guise of separate corporate bodyand it was found that the appellant company was the very same corporate entitywhich committed default in paying the electricity charges earlier. Thus it was heldby the Bombay High Court that the appellant company was not an independententity having no concern with the previous defaulter.

Aggrieved, appellant company filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. Thecompany contended that the directors and the shareholders of the company weredifferent from that of the M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd., they had nothing todo with the present company, the whole corporate entity has been changed and

2

2 Case Laws on Electricity

the respondent MSEB was bound to give connection without insisting for thepayment of electricity charges to be paid by M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether the appellant company wasthe same corporate entity as M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and liable to paythe previous electricity charges or was it a separate and distinct corporate entityhaving no previous liability?

Decision

The Supreme Court held that they were unable to accept the contention ofthe appellant company that by changing the members of the Board of Directors ofthe company or by changing the shareholding pattern, the company had undergoneany change. The same company wanted the electricity connection without makingany payment towards the electricity charges payable by the previous consumer.The matter was dealt in detail by the High Court and it was held that the appellantcompany was none other than the sister concern of M/s Amar Amit Jalna AlloysPvt. Ltd. and was representing the same consumer who had committed the defaultand that Condition 23 (b) of the Conditions of Miscellaneous Charges for supply ofelectricity energy would apply to the appellant company. By change of directors orby change of pattern of the shareholding, the appellant company was not really adifferent entity from M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. (India) Ltd. The reasons givenin the previous judgment would apply with all force against the present appellantcompany and the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by theappellant company.

The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the impugnedjudgment and the appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

3

Case Laws on Electricity 3

Ruby Mushroom & Canning Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab StateElectricity Board

IV (2005) CPJ 252 (NC)

Facts

The complainant/petitioner, Ruby Mushroom & Canning Pvt. Ltd, an agro basedindustry was involved in a project for growing of mushrooms and its canning. Theproject was financed by PFC, Chandigarh by giving a loan of Rs. 82.40 lakh whichwas later on increased to 109 lakh with half yearly interest @ 20%, 4% penal interestin case of default and ¾ % surcharge. The complainant firm applied for electricconnection of 80 KW on 8.1.1993 along with deposit of Rs. 2,47,044/- towards serviceline charges, to the opposite party, PSEB. The connection was not released though itwas mandatory on the part of the board to release it within two months from thedate of deposit of money as per Sales Manual Instruction No. 26. Aggrieved by that,the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition. Thereafterthe opposite parties released the connection on 1.2.1995, i.e. virtually after two yearsof submitting the application.

The complainant alleged that due to grudge, the board installed a defectivemeter. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the opposite parties inthe middle of the year 1996 but without any result. The PSEB functionaries floutedeven the mandatory instruction (Sales Manual Instruction No. 161), which made itobligatory to check at least once in every 6 months, all the industrial/bulk supplyconnections with more than 20 KW load. Finally, the complainant made a formalrequest on 14.2.1997 for meter testing along with required deposit of Rs. 250/- asMeter Challenge Fee, but no result emerged despite repeated personal visits by thecomplainant to the PSEB Office and issuance of reminders.

The complainant then filed a civil suit for getting the meter tested on 27.9.1997.Resultantly, a casual testing of the meter was done by a senior Executive Engineer(Enforcement Staff) of PSEB, Mohali on 30.9.1997 and the said checking was doneonly with regard to the ‘rating capacity’ of the meter. Despite the protest of thecomplainant, the testing of the meter by installing a parallel meter to check thealleged fast running of the meter was intentionally not done. Therefore, thecomplainant insisted before the trial court to get the meter checked from MeterMobile Testing Squad against which the board contested that the same could beprovided only at the cost of Rs. 3,650. The complainant deposited the said amountbut alleged that the same was against the circular of the board and insisted for the

4


refund of the same. On 19.12.97, the Mobile Meter Testing Squad, Mohali undertookthe testing of the meter through parallel meter methodology. As per the report thedisputed meter was running fast by 161.84%. The complainant challenged that eventhis report was wrong as the relevant report gave the five ‘test-readings’, whichshould give an average of 163.36% instead of lower average of 161.84%.

The complainant further alleged that inspite of the detection of the error offast running of the meter, the PSEB, failed to provide the necessary rebate/relief byprompt overhauling of his account from the date of installation of the defectivemeter till its testing despite repeated reminders. The meter of the complainant waschanged twice but the new meters installed started creeping, thus, the old meterwas again installed.

Since the rebate was not given to the complainant by overhauling his account,he did not make payment of the disputed bills. Then the PSEB, disconnected severaltimes the electric connection of the complainant without issuance of mandatory 7days’ prior notice followed by a total disconnection on 5.1.99 resulting in stoppage ofthe factory and total ruin of the complainant’s business, with a staggering liabilityof almost 140 lakh. Thus, alleging deficiency in rendering service, the complainantapproached the District Forum for relief.

Before the District Forum the PSEB denied whatever the complainant stated.The main contention, which was raised by the PSEB, was with regard tomaintainability of the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forumheld PSEB deficient in rendering service and allowed the complaint. Against theorder passed by the District Forum, both the parties appealed before the StateCommission.

The State Commission observed that the Board was deficient and negligentand did not leave any step to harass the complainant. The complainant wascompelled by the PSEB authorities to run after them, instead of the managing theaffairs of the industry and the complainant had suffered a lot on account ofinefficiency and callousness on the part of the Board. The State Commission heldthat the complainant could not be burdened with the liability of the MonthlyMinimum Charges for the period of the disconnection of the electricity. The StateCommission modified the order of the District Forum on this point only. The StateCommission, therefore, directed the Electricity Board not to charge any MonthlyMinimum Charges for the period 3.12.1998 (the date of temporary disconnection)till actual re-connection. Against that order of the State Commission, the petitionerfiled revision petition before the National Commission.

5


Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency in serviceon the part of the Electricity Board in not supplying electricity to the complainantin time and deliberately installing faulty meter in the premises and whether thedecision of the State Commission was as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that it was a case in which the law laid downby the Apex Court was required to be applied with full vigour and in true spirit.Citizens of a Socialist Democratic Republic should not feel helplessness againstundesirable functioning in the Government or semi-government officers. TheNational Commission referred to the judgment of the Apex court in LucknowDevelopment Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) wherein it was held thatbecause of such harassment, crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society,due to lack of public resistance, or, putting in other words, succumb to the pressureof undesirable functioning of the officers instead of standing against this.

Before the National Commission the petitioner submitted that consideringthe dispute involved he may be permitted to implead PFC as party respondent sothat appropriate justice could be done to him. His contention was that the PFC hadcalculated the amount payable by him with compound interest at 25% on quarterlyrest basis. The loan amount was mounting and if this was permitted the petitionerwould become insolvent. Considering the facts the petitioner was permitted toimplead the PFC as party respondent. In view of the matter, Registry was directed toissue notice to the Managing Director, Punjab Financial Corporation. The NationalCommission further directed PSEB to comply for the time being with the directionsissued by the State Commission. With regard to the other reliefs appropriatedirections were to be issued later.

Ordered accordingly

6


Shankar Sah v. Electrical Executive Engineer

IV (2005) CPJ 178 (NC)

Facts

The Appellant/Complainant Shankar Sah was the consumer of the electricitysupplied by Bihar State Electricity Board, having connection for running his hotel‘Annapurna’. The complainant was irregular in payment of electricity bills and therewere outstanding dues against him for which the Electricity Board disconnectedelectricity supply on more than one occasion. But the connection was restored onmaking partial payments of outstanding dues. On 23.7.2002 the connection wasagain disconnected as outstanding amount increased to Rs.33, 601.75/-. On complaintbeing filed before District Forum, it quashed the bill of Rs.33, 601.75/- together withprevious bill of Rs.27, 536.18/- and directed the respondent Electricity Board to raiserevised bills excluding delayed payment surcharge, etc. Aggrieved by the order of theDistrict Forum, Electricity Board made an appeal to the State Commission, whichwas allowed. Against the order of the State Commission the complainant made aRevision Petition before the National Commission. The counsel of the complainantcontended before the National Commission that as the demands raised by the Boardwere being disputed no liability on account of delayed payment surcharge could belevied on the petitioner and the State Commission erred in setting aside the order ofthe District Forum. According to the petitioner only an amount of Rs.1, 049.91/- waspayable to the Electricity Board.

Issue

The main issue raised by the complainant before the National Commissionwas whether there was deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board indisconnecting his electricity supply and sending him alleged bills and whether theState Commission erred in setting aside the order of the District Forum and inallowing delayed payment surcharge.

Decision

Upholding the order of the State Commission and rejecting the contentions ofthe petitioner, the National Commission held that from the calculations filed andalso from the response of the respondent Board, it may be seen that the petitionerwas irregular in making payments of the bills and electricity connection wasrestored on more than one occasion on making partial payments of the outstanding

7


dues. Petitioner, thus, cannot escape liability for payment of delayed paymentsurcharge on the outstanding amount as calculated by the respondent Board. TheNational Commission further held that there was no illegality or jurisdictionalerror in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisionaljurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Accordingly, revision petition was dismissed. No order as to cost.

Revision Petition dismissed.

8


Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Lila Ram

IV (2005) CPJ 1 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, Lila Ram had applied for an electric connectionfor agriculture purposes on 12.7.1993 under general category for which he depositeda sum of Rs. 1,000/- to take benefit of a scheme of the petitioner Board. Yet, theconnection was not given even after lapse of almost 3 years. In these circumstances,a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint anddirected the petitioner to sanction the connection to the complainant.

Against the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before theState Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forumand held that the appellant should give the benefit of notification dated 5.1.1996 tothe respondent also, at par with those in whose cases demand was raised at therelevant time and benefit of this notification was given. The case of the presentrespondent would be treated at par with the cases of those persons but the caseshould not be treated as a precedent in such matters. The appellant would raise thedemand accordingly and would deliver such demand to the respondent within aperiod of one month from today failing which this appeal would be deemed to havebeen dismissed.

Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the petitioner filedrevision petition before the National Commission. The petitioner relied upon adepartment’s notification dated 5.1.1996 contending that since no demand wasraised on the ground of non-feasibility, they could not be directed to give theconnection now, treating the complainant at par with others who had been giventhe connection earlier.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission was whether therewas deficiency in service by the Vidyut Vitaran Nigam in not giving connection tothe complainant even after a lapse of almost three years and whether the order ofthe District Forum as modified by the State Commission was as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the notification referred to have been

9


issued much after the application for getting connection under the then prevalentscheme. The fact that some undeclared/invisible target had been achieved underthe scheme could not be made a ground for not giving the connection to thecomplainant. The complainant had applied in 1993 and it was now year 2005 and itwas a pity that system like the Electricity Board floats scheme, accepts money andyet does not render service. Such systems need to introspect as to what harm theyare doing to their image.

The Commission further held that there was no infirmity in the order passedby the State Commission, which had sufficiently protected the interest of thepetitioner by observing that the case could not be treated as precedent in suchother matters.

The Commission was of the view that there was no merit in this revisionpetition, hence dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.

10


Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh & Ors.

III (2005) CPJ 35 (SC)

Facts

The Respondents/Complainants were agriculturists who filed applications toobtain supply of electricity energy. The Board asked them to deposit the securityamount. Despite deposit of security amount and compliance with other formalities,electrical energy was not supplied to the respondents/complainants. The respondentshad also spent a huge amount on construction of Kotha and making otherarrangements for obtaining supply of electrical energy. Aggrieved, complainants filedcomplaints before the District Forums alleging deficiency in service on the part of theBoard. The District Forums found the Board guilty of deficiency in service and directedthe Board to give the connections to the complainants within the period specifiedtherein and also awarded compensation. The Board preferred appeals on the groundthat it was obligated to supply electrical energy to the applicants maintaining theorder of seniority, in view of Regulation 24 of the Sales Manual. The said appeals weredismissed. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith Revision Petitions were filed by theElectricity Board. The National Commission while upholding the claim of the Boardthat the order of seniority should be maintained in the matter of supply of electricalenergy directed it to release connections to all applicants by 31.3.2004. It also directedpayment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amounts deposited bythe complainants and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each to them. Cost of Rs.2,000/- was also directed to be paid. Feeling aggrieved, the Board filed civil appealsbefore the Supreme Court.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board contended thatthe National Commission acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the orderswithout taking into consideration that the Board at the relevant time did not actonly in terms of the circulars issued by the State but also acted under the regulationsframed under Section 79 (j) of the said Act in terms whereof no interest was payable.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency on thepart of the Electricity Board and whether the directions of the National Commissionwere as per the law laid under Consumer Protection Act.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the Board, a statutory authority, was a ‘State’

11


within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As a State, the Boardwas expected to discharge its statutory functions within a reasonable time havingregard to the fact that it undertook an important public utility service. Its actionsbesides being governed by the Electricity (Supply) Act and the regulations framedthereunder, must also fulfill the test of reasonableness as envisioned under Article14 of the Constitution of India.

What would be a reasonable period for supply of electrical energy to differentcategories of consumers has been specified in the administrative circulars issued aswell as the regulations made by the Board itself. The persons had applied for grantof electrical connection as far back in 1986 and the Board had asked them to depositthe security amount only sometimes in the year 1999. Despite expiry of the prescribedperiod, no electrical connection was given. If the Board was serious to implement itsown circular, it was obligatory on its part to draw a blueprint so as to enable it tomake supply of electrical energy to the consumers in order of seniority of applicationupon procuring the requisite materials therefore. It failed and/or neglected to do so.It was also under an obligation to notify the persons concerned stating the reasonswhy such supply could not be made during the period specified in the administrativecircular and/or regulations. The Board did not say that the said requirements werecomplied with.

It was also idle to contend that the Board was cash-starved owing to any faultydecision on the part of the State. If it suffered losses owing to any direction issued by theState pursuant to any policy decision adopted by it, the same being an internal matterbetween the State and the Board, the prospective consumers could not suffer therefore.

Furthermore, it was evident from the orders passed by the District Forum, StateCommission and the National Commission that no reason was assigned by the Boardas to why it could not comply with its administrative circulars/regulations.

Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 mandates a licensee to grantelectrical connection to an applicant. Although the said provision was not applicableso far as the Board was concerned, it was bound to supply electrical energy. Theprovisions contained therein also envisaged supply of electrical energy within areasonable time. The Board being a deemed licensee under the Indian ElectricityAct having been constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Act ordinarily could not beheard to say that it was not in a position to supply electricity to a class of consumers,having invited applications from them.

In this case, apparently, the Board was not in a position to supply electricalenergy to the consumers within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of the

12


demand notice. It not only failed to supply electrical energy to the 71 complainantswho were before the National Commission but even failed to supply electrical energyto those who had applied much prior thereto. Before the State Commission and theNational Commission, the prime contention of the Board was that the claimants-respondents could not have been given a march over others who had filedapplications prior to them. The National Commission rightly did not find faultwith such contention but secured the presence of the Chief Engineer of the Boardonly for the purpose of ascertaining as to how soon supply of electrical energy couldbe ensured to all concerned including the claimants/ respondents. Before theNational Commission, the Chief Engineer gave an undertaking that all suchconnections would be given by 31st March 2004. From the aforementioned conductof the authorities of the Board, there was no doubt that had the claimants/respondents not knocked the doors of the Forum under the Consumer ProtectionAct, they might not have even obtained electrical connection for years to come.

The Commission had rightly found that the Board having not made itself readyto supply electrical energy to the agriculturists unjustly enriched itself with the moneydeposited by the complainants without rendering any service in return. It was evidentthat the Board wanted to fill its coffer with the amount of the security deposits andother deposits made by the prospective buyers of electricity. Further relying on oron the basis of the representations made by the Board in terms of its circular lettersand/or regulations, the prospective consumers also spent a huge amount onconstruction of Kotha and making themselves ready for getting the electricalconnection. A ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution of India must act fairly andbona fide. It cannot act for a purpose which is wholly unauthorized and not germanefor achieving the object it professes whether under a statute or otherwise.

Therefore, Supreme Court did not find any fault in the orders of the NationalCommission. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the interest of justicewould be sub-served if the directions issued by the National Commission weremodified to the extent that instead and in place of interest at the rate of 12% perannum, the appellants were directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annumand instead of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- in each, compensation of Rs.5,000/- in each was directed to be awarded.

The appeals were dismissed subject to the aforementioned modifications.

No costs.

Appeals dismissed.

13


Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffan(I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

II (2005) CPJ 6(SC)

Facts

The Complainant Laffan (I) Pvt. Ltd had a showroom for carrying out retailtrade in textiles. The electricity was being supplied by Bombay Electric Supply andTransport Undertaking through two meters installed at premises one for light,fans and another for air conditioning unit. Initial meter was burnt and new meterwas installed on 2.5.1988. In routine checking the said meter was found to be runningslow and respondent was informed on 14.6.1989 that the meter would be replacedand revised bills would be issued. Thereafter, a new meter was installed on 30.6.1989.This meter was also found to be running slow and respondent was informed on25.9.1989 that the meter would be replaced and revised bill would be issued. On18.12.1989 a new meter was installed. This also got burnt and was replaced on30.12.1989. The appellant then taking the preceeding one year’s period i.e. from 2.2.1987to 1.2.1988 as base period and pattern of consumption recorded therein revised thebill and sent a demand notice dated 5.9.1990 for Rs. 2,19,602.73/- for the period 1.2.1988to 30.12.1988 as the respondent had undercharged by 1,13,212 unit. As the respondentdid not pay the amount, a notice of disconnection was sent on 25.10.1990 callingupon to pay the amount within a week failing which the electricity supply wouldbe disconnected.

The respondent challenged the notice of demand and disconnection beforeBombay High Court by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed thewrit and held that the consumer should have raised the dispute before the ElectricalInspector under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in case he challengedor disputed the assertion that the meter was running slow. As no such dispute wasraised, the appellant was entitled to replace the meter if it was defective and raise ademand on the basis of average consumption for the past period. The respondentfiled an appeal before the Division bench, which allowed it. The demand notice wasquashed. The Division Bench held that if the Undertaking disputed the correctnessof the meter, it should have referred the dispute to the Electrical Inspector providedin Section 26(6) of the Act and it was for the Electrical Inspector to estimate theamount of energy supplied to the consumer. As the undertaking had not referredthe dispute to the Electrical Inspector and consequently no estimate of the energysupplied to the respondent had been prepared, it was not open to the appellant to

14


raise a bill on the basis of the average of the last one year’s consumption. Furtherthe demand notice was for a period exceeding six months immediately precedingthe date thereof, therefore it was illegal. Against the order of the Division Bench, theundertaking filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue

The main issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether sending a revisedbill based on the average consumption of preceding year by B.E.S.T.U. was correct.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the main question was whether Subsection (6)of Section 26 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was applicable to the facts andcircumstances of the present case and if so, to what extent. The Supreme Court heldthat the applicability of Section 26(6) is attracted only when the meter is not correct.Section 26(6) will have no applicability, (i) if the consumer is found to have committeda fraud with the licensee and thereby illegally extracted the supply of energypreventing or avoiding its record; or (ii) has resorted to a trick or device whereby alsothe electricity is consumed by the consumer without being recorded by the meter.

As to what would be a correct meter, sufficient indication has been provided inthe Act and Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 in the Explanation given at the end ofSubsection (7) of Section 26 of the Act and Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 57. What iscontemplated in Section 26(6) is a running meter but which on account of sometechnical defect register the amount of the energy supplied or electrical quantitycontained in the supply beyond the prescribed limits of error. It contemplates ameter, which is either running slow or fast with the result that it does not registerthe correct amount of energy supplied. Section 26(6) confers power upon ElectricalInspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during suchtime not exceeding six month, as the meter in the opinion of the Inspector has notbeen correct.

The Supreme Court held that in the present case the demand raised by theappellant could be divided into two parts (i) for the period during which the meterwas burnt and (ii) for the period for which the meter was not correct. For the periodfor which the reading could not be recorded as the meter was burnt the licenseecould raise demand based on the average consumption for the similar period duringthe previous year. For the period for which the meter was not correct none of theparties had referred the dispute to the Electrical Inspector. The readings had beenregularly recorded for the incorrect meter, bills raised and also paid by the consumer.

15


According to Section 26(6), the reading would bind both the appellant andrespondent. Further according to proviso to Subsection (4) of Section 26, the licenseecannot take of or remove any such meter until the meter has been determined bythe Electrical Inspector. The purpose is to preserve the evidence. The dispute shallbe expeditiously disposed of by the Electrical Inspector by applying scientific methodof investigation to find, if the meter was incorrect and if so then what was theextent of error. Admittedly, no dispute has been referred to Electrical Inspector andthe most material evidence, the meter, has been lost by the act of appellant. Theappellant could not be allowed to take advantage of its own act and omission, theact of removing the meter and the omission, to make reference to the ElectricalInspector.

On the basis of material on record the impunged demand could not bebifurcated into two on the criterion discussed. The appellant should be left free toexamine its records and revise its demand. The Supreme Court clarified that thedemand raised by the appellant based on the average consumption during thesimilar period in the last year was justified for the period for which the reading waslost on account of the meter been found burnt. Accordingly, the calculation basedon the record of consumption for the corresponding period from the previous yearwould hold good and respondent would be bound to pay a demand raised. So far asthe period for which the meter was said to be incorrect, the appellant had not madereference to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act. Thus, the revisedreadings based on the findings of the Electrical Inspector were not available. TheSupreme Court held thus that the appellant could not be allowed to raise anadditional demand over and above the demand raised through the bills, whichwere issued for that period and paid by the respondent. The right to raise additionalbills stood lost by the appellant for its failure to proceed in accordance with Section26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910.

Accordingly the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal.

No order as to costs.

Appeal disposed of.

16


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bhagwat Prasad

I (2005) CPJ 104 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant Bhagwat Prasad was a consumer of HaryanaState Electricity Board (H.S.E.B). He filed a complaint before the District Forumalleging deficiency in service on the part of HSEB and alleged that the Board haswrongfully collected Rs. 62, 874/- from him. But the Electricity Board contendedthat the complainant was involved in theft of electricity and the amount recoveredfrom him was justified to that extent. On the question of no theft of electricity,President and Members of the District Forum were unanimous, but there wasdifference as to what should be done with the amount recovered wrongfully. ThePresident ordered that the amount recovered wrongfully be adjusted in future billsapart from the direction that the entire account of the consumer be overhauled.But the other two Members of the District Forum did not agree with the ElectricityBoard retaining the amount for future adjustment and held that this amountshould be refunded with interest at the rate at which Electricity Board chargedsurcharge on unpaid amount of electricity charges.

The HSEB filed an appeal before the State Commission, which affirmed themajority judgment passed by the District Forum except for deleting the amount ofcompensation. Again, the HSEB made a revision petition before the NationalCommission against the order of the State Commission.

Issue

Is there any ground for the National Commission to interfere with the majorityview of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission on refund of theamount with interest?

Decision

The National Commission after going through the case in detail upheld themajority decision of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission anddismissed the Revision Petition. The National Commission held that the DistrictForum in its majority decision has rightly ordered that the amount should berefunded with interest at the rate at which the Electricity Board chargedsurcharge on unpaid amount. Thus, upholding the orders, the NationalCommission further held that there was absolutely no ground for them to

17


interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below under Section 21 (b) of theConsumer Protection Act, 1986.


18


Raghuwar Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v.U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

IV (2004) CPJ 78 (NC)

Facts

Complainant was the owner of cold storage company having electricityconnection from the Respondent U.P. Power Corporation. He filed complaint beforethe District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation fordamage of potatoes in their cold storage because of non-supply of electricitycontinuously for 18 hours in a day as per the agreement between them. A sum of Rs.1,13,99,780/- with 24% interest per annum was claimed as damages from the date ofissuance of legal notice dated 12.9.1996. The Corporation contended that since thegeneration of electricity power was less, hence supply, could not be made for morethan 8 to 10 hours and generation of electricity depends upon various factors andits demand.

Issue

The question involved in this complaint was whether UP State Electricity Boardwas deficient in services and liable to pay damages due to its inability to supplyelectricity to the company for 18 hours in a day as per the agreement.

Decision

The National Commission after going through different clauses of theagreement between parties and their contentions held that the basis of filing thecomplaint was the clause of the agreement executed between the Electricity Boardand the complainant for supply of electricity for 18 hours. Therefore, decisiondepended upon interpretation of the aforesaid condition. As per the said conditionthe Electricity Board was required to supply electricity power continuously for 18hours each day. However, exceptions were carved out to the effect that suppliershall not be responsible for damages or otherwise -

(a) on account of accidental interruption or stoppage or curtailmentor diminution in the supply of energy as a result of any order or direction issued bythe Government of UP;

(b) or resulting from fire, flood, stoppage or any accident or from any strike orlock out;

19


(c) or from any other cause beyond the control of the supplier.

The Commission further held that it was also provided that supplier shallmake every effort to restore the supply as soon as possible. On behalf of the ElectricityBoard, it was pointed out that since the generation of electricity power was less,hence supply, could not be made for more than 8 to 10 hours. Generation of electricitydepended upon various factors and its demand. Therefore, in the present case, itwas apparent that supplier would not be responsible for damage on account ofstoppage or curtailment or diminution in supply of energy as the cause of non-supply of electricity was beyond its control. The main reason for non- supply wasless generation of electricity.

Further terms and conditions of the memorandum for grant of powerspecifically provided that power would be made available as per the scheme adoptedby the Government from time to time. This condition would make it abundantlyclear that if Government would direct the respondent to supply the electricity inrural area, complainant could not raise any objection and claim damages. Undersuch circumstances as per office memorandum, complainant was advised to installits own diesel generating set of suitable capacity. If complainant failed to installsuch diesel set it was not the fault of the Electricity Board.

Thus, the National Commission held that there was no substance in thecomplaint. They, therefore, would not deal with any other contention includingthe contention that complainant was not a consumer as hiring of the services andsupply of electricity was for commercial purpose.

In the result, petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.

20


Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. v.Heera Ballabh Pant

III (2004) CPJ 73 (NC)

Facts

The petitioner had an electric connection of 0.500 KW for light and fan in hisshop, which he got disconnected in the year 1993. In the year 1995 he applied forrestoration of the said connection. He deposited Rs. 2,821/- with the Department on27.7.1995 for a connection of 3 HP for running the spice factory, I HP for light and thefan and thus, 4 HP in all and the balance amount was deposited on 4.8.1995. Thecomplainant took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the State Bank of India for installationof machine, purchased machine but, the appellant did not restore the connectionof 4 HP. As a result he suffered a loss for over rupees one lakh. Aggrieved thecomplainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum passedan ex-parte order in favour of the complainant. An appeal was filed against thisorder before the State Commission, Uttaranchal. The appeal was barred bylimitation. Though the State Commission did not find any justifiable ground tocondone the delay but still considered the matter on merits and dismissed theappeal. But the order for payment of Rs. 12,000/- towards interest of justice was setaside. Rest of the order of payment of Rs. 84,080/- with 12 per cent interest wasupheld. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, revision petition was filed by the PowerCorporation before the National Commission.

Issue

The issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency in service onthe part of the Power Corporation in not restoring the electricity connection andwhether the decision of the State Commission was in accordance with the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the appeal itself was barred by time. Thepetitioner corporation disputed the disconnection but there was no answer to thedemand of reconnection charges from the complainant in December 1993. Therecould not be any reason to submit the demand bill of 4 HP when the technicalobjections were not spelled out. On seeing the circumstances, both the DistrictForum and the State Commission were of the view that complainant had sufferedmental harassment and loss in business and awarded damages to the tune of

21


Rs. 84, 080/- with 12 per cent interest. The National Commission held that from theaforementioned circumstances it appears that Uttaranchal Power CorporationLtd. was deficient in rendering services. The amount of compensation awardedcould not be said to be unjust. The Commission further held that it was expectedthat the petitioner would not continue to commit the same kind of deficiency inservice in giving connections to the general public. The National Commission didnot find it a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of theConsumer Protection Act. Hence, revision petition was dismissed.


22


Shree Kumar Textiles Pvt. Ltd v. Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard & Ors.

III (2004) C P J 23 (NC)

Facts

Shree Kumar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., the complainant had a 500 KVA, three-phaseelectricity supply connection from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to run theunit. There was a power break down on 3rd July 1995; power was restored on thenext day but only in two phases, which was not adequate to run the unit. Thecomplainant on 5th July 1995 requested the Electricity Board to restore third phase.The Board restored three-phase connection on 27th July. But due to recurrence ofsome fault, the third phase again tripped of making the unit inoperative. Thereafter,complainant repeatedly met and requested the Board to restore the third phase,but no action was taken. Aggrieved by that, the complainant filed three separatewrits before the High Court and accordingly with the direction of the High Courtconnection was restored on 24th August 1995.

Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before the National Commissionalleging deficiency in service on the part of T.N.E.B. claiming Rs. 44, 51,750/- alongwith interest @ 20% p.a. The complainant contended that his unit suffered a hugeloss due to continuous non-supply of electricity in the third phase for 52 days, whichwas a clear case of deficiency in service. Due to the non-supply of electricity in thethird phase, he had to close the unit and suffered loss of production, loss of face inthe market, as they could not honour their commitment and loss of money paid tothe labourers during the closure period, etc. The complainant also said that he waspaying the minimum charges of electricity on demand by the Board. Thus allegingdeficiency, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 44,51,750/- along with interest@ 20% for the loss suffered.

IssueThe main issues were:

(i) Whether the National Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon thematter.

(ii) As complainant has failed to claim any relief for damages in earlierproceedings, whether he can claim any relief by way of separate proceedings.

(iii) Whether non-supply of electricity to the third phase for 52 days amountsto deficiency in service.

23


Decision

The National Commission rejecting the preliminary objection relating to thejurisdiction to adjudicate held that jurisdiction to adjudicate is determined bySection 2((1)(d) (i) & (ii) and Section 2(1) (o). There was no dispute that opposite partywas rendering service to the complainant and there was allegation of deficiency byway of not supplying electricity as per terms of the agreement. The supply of powerwas under an agreement and admittedly the complainant was without propersupply of power. Deficiency is writ large on the face of it, which brought it withinthe jurisdiction of a Consumer Court. On the question that the complainant couldnot claim any relief for the damage before the National Commission as they failedto claim the same in his earlier proceeding, the National Commission held thatthere was a clear misreading of the record before the High Court. Even though notspecifically mentioned by the opposite party, relief sought by the petitioner was togrant interim direction directing the respondents to restore the three-phase powersupply where as before the National Commission relief sought was for deficiency inrendering service. In no way the two clashed stopping the complainant to seekrelief before a Consumer Forum.

As far as deficiency in service was concerned National Commission held thatthe communication was made by complainant on 8.7.1995, which was received byopposite party on 10.7.1995 as admitted in the counter affidavit before the HighCourt of Madras, but the three-phase supply was restored only on 21.7.1995. It wasdifficult to appreciate what prevented the opposite party to react immediately onthe possible fault line indicated by the complainant. The reason espoused by theopposite party was on account of “undetectable and invisible technical difficulty” inthe transmission line from the pole to the complainant Mill. The NationalCommission held that even after very carefully going through the whole materialson records no hint has been thrown as what was done to restore the ‘third phase’after detecting the so called ‘undetectable, and invisible technical difficulties. Nothinghas been shown or brought on record by the opposite party to make the Commissionwise as to how the undetectable became detectable and invisible visible, after gettinga rap on their knuckles from the High Court. Either it was case of high inefficiency-deliberate or otherwise or it was a case of keeping complainant in a semi-satisfiedcondition by way of supplying electricity only in two phases. On therecommendation of the opposite party to the complainant to use generator, theNational Commission stated that they were also unable to appreciate the plea ofthe opposite party that they showed their bonafides by granting licence/ permissionto operate the generator. The Commission observed that opposite party was running

24


an electricity board charged with the responsibility of supplying electricity and notgranting licence to run generator. Generator can best be perceived as ‘back up’ andnot as main source of supply of electricity.

For the deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board the National Commissiongranted Rs.1, 75,000/- for the loss on account of wages paid to the workers for 15 daysfor which factory had to stop, Rs. 84,000/- for the amount collected by TNEB despitenon supply of three phase power, rupees two lakh as compensation for the loss ofproduction and resultant loss during the 52 days, Rs.12, 500/- being the difference incost of power during which the unit could not run properly due to use of generator.As a result complaint was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay in all Rs. 4,71,500/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of filing of the complaint alongwith Rs. 20, 000/- as cost of litigation. The Commission directed that all the amountsshall be paid within six weeks of the passing of the order failing which rate of interestwould go up to 12% p.a.

Complaint allowed.

25


Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors v. Tek Bahadur Singh

I (2004) CPJ 125 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/ Complainant, Tek Bahadur Singh was a farmer who hadapplied for an electricity connection to be installed on tube-well in his agriculturalfield on 30.6.1996 after paying registration fee. A demand notice was issued by thePunjab State Electricity Board (P.S.E.B.), on 9th July 1998 asking the complainantto pay Rs.15, 000/-, which the complainant paid on 8th October 1998. The ElectricityBoard did not supply electricity to him even after years inspite of regular requests.At the relevant time, PSEB regulations for supply of energy to the consumerincluded Regulation 26 under which an electric connection was required to begiven within two months. Aggrieved by that the complainant lodged a complaintbefore the District Forum on 6th November 2001, alleging deficiency on the partof Electricity Board. He contended that he installed the tube–well and electricmotor in October 1998, spending Rs.30, 000/-but that investment was lying idledue to non-supply of electricity. In his complaint he also claimed the compensationfor inefficiency on part of the PSEB. Explanation given by the PSEB was that certainrequirements of the demand notice have not been complied with andcomplainant’s turn has not come according to the separate seniority listmaintained by PSEB.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the concerned officersof P.S.E.B. for providing the electric connection. The District Forum also directedthe P.S.E.B. to send in writing to the complainants within one month’s time as towhat exactly are the specific requirements of the demand notice that have notbeen complied with, complainant shall thereafter comply with those requirementswithin two months and the Board shall release the electric connection to thecomplainant. Aggrieved by that order of the District Forum, the P.S.E.B. went inappeal before the State Commission. Besides this appeal, the P.S.E.B also madeappeals in two related cases. Hearing the appeals, the State Commission confirmedthe order of the District Forum. On the matter of separate seniority list, the StateCommission held that the question of separate seniority list should have beenconsidered before issuing demand notice. After the issuance of demand noticeany seniority list maintained by PSEB was not of any relevance. Thus, in all thethree cases the State Commission dismissed the appeals. The Electricity Boardfiled revision petition before the National Commission against the order of the

26


State Commission.

Issue

The main issues involved in this case were

(i) Whether there was deficiency in services on the part of Electricity Board innot supplying electricity to the complainants for years together even after thepayment of registration fee.

(ii) Whether the Board was liable to pay the compensation thereof.

Decision

After going through the contentions of both the parties in detail, theNational Commission allowed the revision petitions. On the contention of theElectricity Board that certain requirements were not met by the respondents,(requiring bills for purchase of electric motors, make and model etc.) the NationalCommission held that requirement of bills of purchase of electric motors, makeand model etc. were minor requirements which could have easily got compliedwith especially after the orders of State Commission which confirmed the orderof the District Forum. Raising this appears to be more in the nature of defendingthemselves for not giving the connection as the connection has not been giventill that day.

In similar matter decided earlier on 4.8.2003, the Chief Engineer(Commercial) was unable to explain the current position but gave assurancethat connection would be given as per seniority list of PSEB as on 31.3.2004. Theamount, which has been taken from the respondents, has been kept for undulylong time, it amounts to undue enrichment. So the petitioner Electricity Boardwas directed to grant interest @ 12% on the deposited amount from the date ofdeposit up to the date of the energization of the connection. The Commissionfurther held that final figures of credit/debit should be worked out by thepetitioner at the time of energization of the connection and communicated tothe complainant(s) within four weeks of energization giving full details. TheRespondent / Complainant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.10, 000 /-in each case for harassment; loss to the complainant and to cover some interestpayment on the premature investment made by them in pump house(s),purchase of equipments etc. Respondents/complainants would also be entitledto cost, which was fixed at Rs. 2000/- in each case. These two payments were tobe made within six weeks of the order. If any discrepancies were still left in thecontext of demand notice, petitioner should point that out within four weeksand help the complainants to remove that at the earliest. Further if the

27


respondents/complainants did not get the electric connection within the time limitindicated by the Chief Engineer Commercial of the petitioner, petitioner shouldthen have to pay very heavy cost for such a failure in each case.


28


Santokh Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board

IV (2003) CPJ 146 (NC)

Facts

The appellant/complainant Santokh Singh had a seasonal factory for whichhe had seasonal electricity connection. The season of the said factory was fromSeptember 15 of every year to May 31st of the next year. He operated the factoryduring the season September 1996 to May 1997. But he did not run the factory for thenext seasonal period i.e. September 1997 to May 1998. For the seasonal connection,the Electricity Board was treating the working period as minimum of four and halfmonths for the purpose of billing. Accordingly, the Punjab State Electricity Board(PSEB) issued a bill for Rs. 42, 356/- as minimum charges for the period 15.9.1997 to31.5.1998, which the complainant deposited. His plea was that he was not liable topay the minimum charges for the season 1997-1998 as he did not operate the factoryand gave proper information to the Electricity Board about the same. He, therefore,sought refund of this amount along with interest. Subsequently, the ElectricityBoard gave another bill for Rs. 23,475/-. The complainant approached the DistrictForum seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 42, 356/-, wrongly paid and for issuanceof direction to PSEB for cancellation of bill for Rs. 23, 475/-. The District Forum heldin favour of the complainant.

Against the order of the District Forum the PSEB filed an appeal before theState Commission. The State Commission examined the provisions of the PunjabState Electricity Board’s Sales Manual, according to which certain minimum chargeswere required to be paid by the consumers irrespective of whether power wasconsumed or not, since these minimum charges were to cover fixed charges incurredby the Board for providing supply lines etc. and to take care of such matters asestablishment costs, depreciation of fixed assets etc. The State Commission allowedthe appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum. Against the order of theState Commission, revision Petition was filed in the National Commission by thecomplainant.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether the Punjab State ElectricityBoard was right in sending those bills as minimum electricity charges for the periodin which the complainant did not use electricity at all and whether there was anydeficiency on their part in sending those bills.

29


Decision

The National Commission agreed with the State Commission that provisionsfor supply and sale of electricity energy to consumers in the condition 27 of thePunjab State Electricity Board, Sales Manual were absolutely clear. In fact the Manualgoes to the extent of saying that the minimum charges will be payable even if theelectricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board dueto non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, malpractices etc. However, afterpermanent disconnection, liability of payment of the minimum charges will cease.The National Commission held that as brought out by the State Commission it wasnot the case of the petitioner that his connection was permanently disconnectednor that he made any request for permanent disconnection. In these circumstances,revision petition stood dismissed and the order of State Commission confirmed.


30


Guru Charan Dass v. AEE, Electricity Department & Ors.

IV (2003) CPJ 138 (NC)

Facts

The complainant made payment of electricity bills of Rs. 2,605/- in draft formon 26.7.1999. It was sent through registered letter to the Electricity Department andwas received on 27.7.1999. The draft was sent back on 30.7.1999 alleging that thepayment was made on 27.7.1999 where as it was due on 26.7.1999. As it was receivedafter due date the amount payable would be Rs. 2,731/-, which would includesurcharge for the late payment. The petitioner complained to the postmasterregarding delay and he informed that registered letter was delivered on 27.7.1999.Punjab and Sind Bank admitted issuance of the draft of Rs. 2,605/- dated 26.7.1999and the amount was still lying in their books, as the draft has not been encashed.Petitioner filed complaint against all three respondents in the District Forumalleging deficiency in service and claimed interest on Rs. 2,605/-. The District Forumdirected respondent No.3 Punjab & Sind Bank to refund the amount of Rs. 2,605/-within 15 days of receipt of copy of order failing which the said amount would carryan interest @ of 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment. The petitioner filed anappeal in the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. The StateCommission dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to file executionproceedings with the District Forum as he was asking for the execution of the orderof the District Forum. While disposing the execution petition, the District Forumdirected the complainant to collect the said amount as per its order. The DistrictForum stated in the order that respondent No. 3 need not pay any interest on thesaid amount of Rs. 2,605/- since it had complied with the order. The petitioner filedrevision in the National Commission against the order of the District Forum prayingfor expenses of his complaint, which included draft charges, registry charges,advocate’s fee, charges for preparation of court papers, interest on Rs.2,605/- andtransport charges.

Issue

The main issue was whether the complainant was entitled to these expenses.

Decision

The National Commission held that the petition was not maintainable as itwas arising out of the order of the execution of petition filed in the District Forum.

31


Further the contention of the petitioner was that the costs and expenses were notawarded by the District Forum. The District Forum had gone into all these factsand found that there was no ground for awarding the same. The main order andthe execution order of the District Forum were held to be well reasoned based onmerits of the case. No deficiency of service was proved against any of the threerespondents.

The revision petition was not maintainable as it was devoid of merit and alsosince the petitioner had come in revision against the order of execution petition ofthe District Forum. Revision Petition was the dismissed.


32


Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Indraj

IV (2003) CPJ 110 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/ Complainant, Indraj was a farmer having an electricityconnection to his old well, which dried and he dug a new well at another place,which he had purchased on 15th February 2000. Thereafter he requested theElectricity Board to shift the electricity connection from the old well to the newone. Tehsildar of the area also testified that the old well had dried up and theAssistant Engineer (Electricity) posted at that time and the Deputy Chief Engineer(Electricity) recommended shifting of the electric connection to the new well. Inspiteof recommendations of higher authorities, both the petitioners sat over therecommendations and did not shift the electric connection. Petitioners took upthe stand that because of a circular of the Electricity Board new connection couldbe provided only if the person was the owner of the land for over five years.

The complainant, Mr. Indraj filed a complaint before the District Forumalleging deficiency on the part of the Vidyut Nigam. The complainant contendedthat for the negligent act of the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, he could not raise his‘kharif’ crops and suffered damages. He also claimed compensation for the losssuffered. The complainant also informed the District Forum that the Vidyut Nigamhad also allegedly concocted a false story of theft of electricity against him andlevied a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- that he paid under protest.

The District Forum directed the Vidyut Nigam to give electricity connectionwithin 15 days and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Besides,for allegedly concocting a false story of theft and levying Rs. 15,000/- as penalty oncomplainant, the District Forum took a serious view in proceeding under Section(s)25/27 of the Act. The District Forum required the presence of the petitioners andagainst that order petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission. The StateCommission took serious view of the non-compliance of the order of the DistrictForum by the petitioners and affirmed the order of the District Forum. It wasagainst this order that a revision petition was filed in the National Commission bythe Vidyut Nigam.

Issue

The main issues involved in the case were whether there was deficiency inservice on the part of Vidyut Nigam in non-supply of electricity to the new well of

33


the complainant inspite of his request and even after the recommendations of theTehsildar of the area and whether the order of the District Forum as duly affirmedby the State Commission directing the Vidyut Nigam to pay compensation wasright as per the provision of the CPA.

Decision

The National Commission while reviewing the order of the State Commissionstated that the District Forum was quite justified in quantifying the loss of ‘Kharif’crop and the mental agony caused to the complainant because of deliberate inactionon the part of the petitioners. It was also found that had the electric connectionbeen shifted to new well at least the complainant could have been able to raise ‘Rabi’crop. The State Commission also did not find any ground for the petitioner’s inabilityin appearing before the District Forum and the order of the District Forum wasaffirmed by the State Commission and appeal dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid, the National Commission could hardly find any reasonto interfere in exercise of their jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of theConsumer Protection Act. Thus the revisions were dismissed.

When the petitions were filed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been deposited inthe District Forum. The National Commission had put a restraint on the DistrictForum not to release the amount. Since the revisions were dismissed, the NationalCommission also lifted bar on the District Forum to release the amount to thecomplainant.


34


Kamla Prasad Tiwari v. Junior Engineer

IV (2003) CPJ 108 (NC)

Facts

The complainant Shri Kamla Prasad took an electric connection for hisagriculture fields from the opposite party in June 1976. On 1.2.1990 the power supplywas interrupted as one of the electrical poles fell down which was brought to thenotice of the Electricity Authorities. Since the opposite party, did not take any actionfrom 1.2.1990 till 11.8.1990 inspite of repeated complaints to various authorities, thecomplainant approached the District Forum. Before the District Forum oppositeparties contested that all the 48 poles supplying electricity fell down simultaneouslydue to hailstorm and that 30 out of 48 wooden poles were installed in the lakewaters.

The District Forum while relying upon the investigation report of SDOI, variouscorrespondences that took place between the complainant and the Departmentheld that once the electricity connection has been provided the responsibility formaintenance and repairs of the line was on the department. The contention of theopposite parties was that if the power supply was interrupted due to any accidentthen the department could not be held responsible, was not appreciated by theDistrict Forum. The District Forum held that electric line was damaged due to thenegligence of the Department and not due to any accident. The complainant wasgranted compensation of Rs. 2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum both the parties went in appeali.e., the complainant for enhancement of the compensation and the oppositeparty for setting aside the order of the District Forum. The State Commissionupheld the order of the District Forum and keeping in view the deficiency inservice rendered by the opposite party and harassment undergone by thecomplainant, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25, 000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.The State Commission also awarded the cost of Rs. 4, 000/-. The complainantfiled revision petition in the National Commission for further enhancement ofcompensation.

Issue

The main issue was whether inaction on the part of the opposite partyconstituted deficiency in service.

35


Decision

The National Commission did not find any illegality or jurisdictional error inthe order of the State Commission. Moreover both the fora below dealt with themerits of the case and came to the correct conclusion. There was no justifiablereason given for the further enhancement that was prayed in the revision petition.In view of the above the National Commission dismissed the revision petition.


36


Kerala State Electricity Board v. Raveendran

IV (2003) CPJ 105 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, Raveendran was running plastic factoryavailing electricity from the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). He had also takena loan from Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC). On account of fall in the voltage inthe electricity supply by the appellant the machines were damaged and productionsuffered. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of KSEB, he filed a complaintbefore the State Commission claiming compensation of Rs. 3,19,693/- comprising; (i)Rs. 1,29,693/- towards interest paid to the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC); (ii) Rs.26,000/- towards the interest to be paid to Canara Bank; (iii) Rs. 42,000/- towards theinterest on capital investment by him; (iv) Rs. 72,000/- towards the business loss; and(v) Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony. The State Commission allowed the complaintand directed the Electricity Board to provide uninterrupted supply of sufficientquantity of electrical energy to the consumer for the functioning of the factoryand to pay the complainant Rs. 25, 000/- towards compensation for the business losssuffered, Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost. Aggrievedby the order of the State Commission, the Electricity Board filed an appeal beforethe National Commission.

Issue

The issue involved in the case was of fluctuation of voltage in supplyingelectricity by the Electricity Board, which damaged the machines of the complainantand compensation claimed thereby. The main issue to be considered by the NationalCommission was whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the KSEBand whether the order of the State Commission directing the KSEB was as per theprovision of Consumer Protection Act.

Decision

As per the National Commission, the directions issued by the State Commissionfor providing uninterrupted supply of electrical energy could not be sustainedkeeping in view the terms of supply of electricity to the complainant. The NationalCommission further held that no evidence was given for alleged business loss sufferedby the complainant. Therefore, modifying the order of the State Commission, theNational Commission awarded the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation

37


towards mental agony and suffering and Rs. 2,000/- as cost as awarded by the StateCommission. The National Commission further awarded Rs. 2,000/- as cost to therespondent/complainant for the appeal made before it. Thus, modifying the order,the National Commission awarded Rs. 14,000/- in all to the complainant.

With modification, appeal was disposed of.

Appeal disposed of.

38


Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors. v.Bodan Ram

IV (2003) CPJ 101 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, Bodan Ram was a farmer who had applied toJaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam in the year 1987 for electricity connection for hisagricultural land. Accordingly, the Vidyut Nigam on 12.2.2002 placed his name at No.44 in the seniority list prepared by the Nigam and he was asked to pay Rs. 59,470/- forproviding electric connection, which was on representation reduced to Rs. 12,470/-. Hedeposited this amount on 1.6.2002 and became entitled to get electricity connection.

Three other persons at serial Nos. 46, 47 and 56 who had deposited Rs. 36,000/-each also became entitled to electricity connection. On knowing about theconcession given to Bodan Ram, they made a complaint before the Nigam. Theircomplaint was that the line from which electric connection was provided to BodanRam was the one for which they had paid for grant of electric connection to theirfields and Bodan Ram should also bear the proportion of that expense for the electricline. Thus, Vidyut Nigam contended that it could not provide electric connection toBodan Ram due to this controversy.

Bodan Ram filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency inservice on the part of the Nigam. The District Forum allowed the complaint anddirected the Vidyut Nigam to take immediate steps to release the electric connectionto the complainant within 60 days of the decision. In case there was failure incompliance of the order, opposite parties should pay jointly and severally by way ofcompensation Rs.100/- per day to the complainant and awarded cost of Rs.500/-.Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Vidyut Nigam made an appealbefore the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal but granted one month’smore time to the Vidyut Nigam to release the electric connection, if not alreadyreleased. The State Commission further stated that if it was not done, thecomplainant would be entitled to compensation as ordered by the District Forum.Against the order of the State Commission, the Vidyut Nigam filed a revision petitionbefore the National Commission.

Issue

The issue involved in this case was whether there was deficiency in service onthe part of the Vidyut Nigam in not providing electricity connection to Bodan Ram.

39


Decision

The National Commission held that the plea was certainly height ofimpropriety on the part of the petitioners in as much as petitioners had receivedamounts not only from Bodan Ram but also from other three persons at Serial Nos.46, 47 and 56. Electric connection could have been granted to all of them and thedispute could have been resolved at any later stage. It appears that the officers ofthe petitioners at lower rank otherwise must see some opportunity to harass theconsumer, may be for ulterior purposes.

The National Commission held that the circumstances narrated show howthe petitioner was grossly deficient in providing electric connection to thecomplainant. The petition was thus dismissed.


40


Guru Nanak Plastic Industries v. Chairman,Rajasthan State Electricity Board

IV (2003) CPJ 89 (NC)

Facts

Complainant had 25 H.P. electricity connection in his factory premises. Hewanted to install a new machinery of the value of Rs. 2, 63,000/- that requiredadditional load of electricity. For this purpose complainant approached theElectricity Department and deposited the requisite amount. Before the loadcould be released an inspection of the factory premises of the complainant wasdone. During the inspection it was found that the premises was havingunauthorised load of 53 H.P. Complainant was asked to deposit an additionalamount of Rs. 5,565/-, which the complainant resisted and filed complaint forcompensation of Rs. 8,99,540/- on the ground that his new machinery remainedidle. The case of the Electricity Board was that the complainant was makingunauthorised use of 53 H.P., was given notice to deposit the additional amountand it was also brought to its notice that in case of failure, a bill will be raisedfor the extra load of electricity being utilized by it. Complainant went to theCivil Court, sought an injunction restraining Electricity Board from recoveringany extra amount.

The State Commission was of the view that since the issues involved in thecomplaint before it were same as in the plaint pending before the Civil Court, itshould not adjudicate on the same dispute. Thus, the State Commission dismissedcomplaint for compensation of Rs. 8,99,540/-. Against the order of the StateCommission the complainant went in appeal before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue was whether the National Commission could adjudicate onthe matter.

Decision

The National Commission was of the view that the State Commission wasright. There was possibility of conflicting findings as the issues before the StateCommission and the Civil Court were same. Moreover, claimed compensation ofRs. 8,99,540/- was remote claim and could not be claimed on the plea that the new

41


machinery remained idle. Even otherwise, such a claim could not have been decidedin the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal National Commission dismissed it.

Appeal dismissed.

42


Ashok Kumar v. SDO, Haryana VidyutParasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

IV (2003) CPJ 57 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, Ashok Kumar had purchased an agricultural land alongwith a tube-well therein from the original owner, Shanti Devi. The sanctioned loadof the electricity was 15 H.P. however the motor installed there was 7.5 H.P. Thecomplainant requested the Vidyut Parasaran Nigam to reduce the load but theVidyut Nigam did not heed to his request. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on thepart of the Vidyut Nigam, the complainant filed a complaint before District Forumalleging deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint and orderedin favour of the complainant. Against that order, the Vidyut Nigam filed an appealbefore the State Commission, which set aside the order of the District Forum.Aggrieved by the dismissal, the complainant filed a revision petition before theNational Commission.

Issue

The main issue in this case before the National Commission was whetherthere was deficiency in service by the Vidyut Nigam in not reducing the load ofelectricity supply.

Decision

The National Commission held that there was a delay of 450 days in filing theappeal for which no sufficient cause was forthcoming. Even on merits the petitionerhad no case. The Commission held that undisputed facts of the case were that theelectric connection was still in the name of the old landholder. Thus, it was evidentthat there was contract between the parties (Vidyut Nigam & Shanti Devi).Application of reduction of the load was made by Ashok Kumar who had no locus,as the electric connection did not stand in his name. In the absence of any agreementbetween the parties (Vidyut Nigam & Ashok Kumar), the complainant could not becalled as a consumer.

Thus, upholding the order of the State Commission, the National Commissionheld that the order of the State Commission was as per law, which called for nointerference in exercise of power conferred on them under Section 21 (b) of theConsumer Protection Act. No cost was awarded.


43


Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd v. Smt. Sharda Devi

IV (2003) CPJ 7 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant Smt. Sharda Devi had deposited Rs. 1,950/- on 12-4-1990 before Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) for agricultural electricityconnection. The Electricity Board without giving any electricity connection senther a bill for Rs. 4,262/- on 22-2-1992 on a flat rate. Aggrieved with alleged bill, Smt.Sarda Devi filed a complaint on 11-11-1992 before the District Forum alleging deficiencyon the part of the Board. She complained that a lot of overhead electrical lines werelaid over her agricultural land for supply of electricity to people further down. Thosejumbles of wires could cause damage and injury to her and other people. Therefore,her husband had protested against lying of such wires. The Electricity Board gotannoyed with that protest and raised on her a false bill without even giving herdirect electric connection.

The District Forum appointed an Advocate as Local Commissioner who madeinspection and reported that there was no sign of any electric line, meter or boardor any sign of electricity connection having been given earlier. But, the ElectricityBoard took the plea that the electricity connection was in fact given and that thecomplainant deliberately removed all traces of connection and the equipment tomake false case of non-release of electricity connection. The District Forum reliedon the version of the Electricity Board official and dismissed the complaint.

The respondent/complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission,against the order of the District Forum. The Electricity Board produced certaindocuments at a very late stage and State Commission held them as not reliable.The State Commission came to the conclusion that the case put forth by therespondent was a bundle of lies and the documents produced by them were quitefalse, forged and subsequently prepared only to defeat the genuine prayers of anagriculturist lady. Thus, the State Commission reversed the order of District Forumand directed the Electricity Board to refund Rs.1, 950/- with interest @ nine per centand a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The Electricity Board filed a revision petition before theNational Commission, against the order of State Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was any deficiency onthe part of Electricity Board in not supplying electricity connection to the

44


complainant though she had deposited the amount and in sending her an allegedbill by claiming to have provided electricity connection to her earlier.

Decision

The matter before National Commission was on appreciation of facts. TheNational Commission held that State Commission had passed a well-reasoned orderafter going through the evidence carefully. The order of the State Commission statedthat it permitted the respondent to explain various facts, which cast a doubt on theauthenticity of the documents. Yet the respondent simply filed a vague reply. TheState Commission observed that the Local Commissioner’s report was prepared inthe presence of both the parties and either party has taken no objections to thereport. The Commissioner stated that not only there were no cables or electricalfittings or electrical equipments but also there were no signs or marks of electricsupply line to the complainant’s well. At the same time Commissioner’s report saidthat only 10 feet away from the complainant’s well, there was an electric pole andthree phases of live wire passed just over the roof of complainant’s room and abovethe well. These were the electric lines, which were laid over the complainant’s fieldto provide electric supply to other further down.

The State Commission doubted the version that any L-Forms was submittedby the complainant. It entertained serious doubts about the separate service linehaving been laid on 21.12.1990. It further mentioned that no details like thecontractor’s name or address who allegedly signed L-forum was furnished by theElectricity Board officials. However, the National Commission accepted that beforethem those details had been furnished but held, it was too late for the revisionpetitioners to do so.

In light of the well-reasoned order of the State Commission, the revision petitionwas dismissed by the National Commission, upholding the order of the StateCommission.


45


Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v.Anand Medicos & Another

III (2003) CPJ 175 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, Anand Medicos, a chemist shop was availingelectricity from the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB). One night fire brokeout in the shop due to short circuit and everything inside the shop was destroyed.Aggrieved by that, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forumalleging deficiency in service on the part of HSEB contending that in the supply ofelectricity to the shop premises of the complainant, there was huge fluctuation inthe electric current with the result short circuit was caused resulting in high voltageand fire, destroying everything in the shop. They alleged that, they suffered a loss ofRs. 3,08,000/-, which they claimed in their complaint. They also sought Rs. 50,000/- ascompensation for harassment.

The Electricity Board denied that the complainants were consumers as theywere having single-phase non-domestic connection for their shop premises. TheElectricity Board also contended that the complaint involved complicated questionsregarding ownership and the articles allegedly burnt and other like matters,therefore, the complaint should be referred to Civil Court.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint and directed the complainantsto seek the remedy in Civil Court. Against the order of the District Forum, thecomplainants filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commissionexamined the whole aspect of the matter in detail and held that there was hardlyany reason for the District Forum to relegate the complainants to Civil Court. TheState Commission held that there was short circuit of electric current in the shoppremises of the complainants, which was the result of negligence in service on thepart of Electricity Board. Accordingly, the State Commission setting aside the orderof District Forum, awarded the amount assessed by the Surveyor Rs. 2, 19,316.76/- tothe complainant with interest @ 12% from the date of fire. Aggrieved with that, theHSEB filed revision petition before the National Commission.

Issue

The issue before the National Commission was whether opportunity shouldhave been granted to the parties to lead evidence or the parties should have beenrelegated to Civil Court.

46


Decision

Upholding the decision of the State Commission, the National Commissionheld that the State Commission has adopted a correct approach. Remand wouldhave caused undue harassment and expenses to the parties. Rejecting thecontentions of the Electricity Board, the National Commission held that it was notthe case of the petitioner that opportunity to lead evidence was denied by the DistrictForum as all the evidence had been led before the District Forum. The NationalCommission however felt that interest should not have been awarded from thedate of the fire itself. Sometime was required to be given to the Electricity Board tofind out where the fault was and what loss if any, was suffered by the complainant.Thus, modifying the order of the State Commission, the National Commission heldthat the interest would be payable from 1st July 1996 instead of 1st January 1996 asordered by the State Commission. Thus, the National Commission dismissed theRevision Petition with the above modifications. There was no order as to costs.

Revision Petition dismissed

47


Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Zora Singh & 70 Ors.

III (2003) CPJ 169 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, Zora Singh, and 70 other farmers had appliedfor electricity connections for agriculture purposes and in response the PunjabState Electricity Board (PSEB) issued notices. Complainants deposited certain amountas demanded by the Board. Hoping to get the connection, they spent money on borewell, towards purchasing electric pumps/motors and on construction of kothis /pump houses. But, even after expiry of three to five years, no electricity connectionwas given. The aggrieved farmers filed complaints before the District Forum againstthe Board and claimed compensation. The District Forum, after hearing, directedthe Board to give the electricity connection within 2 to 6 months. Compensationvarying from Rs. 1,000/- to 5,000/- was also awarded to the farmers for the deficiencyin service on the part of the Board. In cases where the petitioner had alleged non-compliance of certain provisions of demand notice, petitioner was allowed onemonth’s time to inform the complainant of the discrepancy and upon receipt ofreply to give connection within two months thereafter.

Against the order of the District Forum Electricity Board filed an appeal beforethe State Commission contending that the Board maintained a seniority list whichcould not be violated as it would result to the detriment of people who had alsoregistered for getting connection and were ahead in the seniority list than thecomplainants. Rejecting the contention of the Board, the State Commissiondismissed all the appeals being barred by limitation as filed with a delay of 9 days.Against the order of the State Commission the Electricity Board filed Revision Petitionin the National Commission.

Issue

In all these 71 cases, the main issue involved was whether the non-supply ofelectricity connection to the farmers even after 3 to 7 years of applying and depositingfees as demanded by the Board was deficiency in services and whether thecompensation awarded by the District Forum to the farmers was sufficient lookingto the extent of loss and harassment.

Decision

The National Commission after going through contention of the appellant in

48


detail allowed the revision but held in favour of the farmers. The NationalCommission observed that instruction No.26 of the Sales Manual of the Boardenvisages provision of connection of electricity within two months after issue ofdemand note. The farmers deposited certain amount and also invested money forconstruction of Pump Houses/purchase of equipment etc. But electricity was notsupplied without giving any good reason.

The National Commission held that the orders of the District Forum wereequitable to those who came before them, yet it would be unjust and inequitable ifcomplainants alone are allowed to jump the queue, i.e. the seniority list maintainedby the petitioner. It was not the case of the complainants that anybody below themhas been given the connection. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstancesof the cases and in the interest of equity, the National Commission sought in thepresence of the Chief Engineer (commercial), who gave an assurance andundertaking on behalf of the Electricity Board that while maintaining the senioritylist, petitioner shall be able to give electricity connection to all the respondents/complainants by 31.3.2004.

Considering the deposit made by the respondents/complainants, the NationalCommission held that petitioner, could not be permitted to get undue enrichmentfrom this money without giving any service in return and directed the ElectricityBoard to grant interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of depositup to date of the energization of electric connection. Thus, final figure of credit/debit should be worked out by the petitioner at the time of energization of theconnection and communicated to the complainants within four weeks ofenergization giving full details.

The National Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in each casefor harassment, loss to complainants and to cover some interest payment on thepremature investment made by them in pump houses, purchase of equipments etc.The National Commission also awarded Rs. 2000/- as cost in each case. These twopayments were directed to be made within six week of the order. If there are anydiscrepancies still left, which were raised in the context of demand notice, petitionershould point that out within four week and help the complainant to remove thatat the earliest.

All the revision petitions were allowed with above terms and orders of DistrictForum as affirmed by State Commission, were set aside.

The National Commission held that in case, the respondents/complainants donot get the electric connection within the time limit indicated by the Chief Engineer

49


Commercial of the petitioner, the petitioner should then have to pay very heavycost for such a failure in each case.


50


Vivek Thakur v. Karam Singh Banyal & Ors.

III (2003) CPJ 168 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, Vivek Thakur had a domestic power connection. He wasrunning wheat thrasher on domestic power. For this his connection wasdisconnected. He filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency inservice in disconnecting the supply. The District Forum dismissed the complaint onthe ground that the disconnection of the electric supply was justified on the groundthat he was running wheat thrasher on domestic power and it was misuse of electricconnection. Hence, the District Forum did not find any deficiency in service anddismissed the complaint. In the appeal to the State Commission, the order of theDistrict Forum was upheld. Against the order of the State Commission thecomplainant filed revision petition before the National Commission.

Issue

Was there any deficiency in service in disconnecting the electricity supply?

Decision

The National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition holding that it wasnot a fit case for them to exercise their jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act,1986.


51


Malee Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Ors.

III (2003) CPJ 81 (NC)

Facts

With a view to develop strawberry plantation complainant acquired over 40acres of land. For irrigation and other purposes complainant got two electricityconnections in October 1995 with a sanctioned load of 40 HP. Two years after gettingthe above load, complainant realised that load of 40 HP was not required andrequested the opposite party in January 1997 to reduce the load to 15 H.P. This wasnot done. Again the matter was taken up with the opposite party. As no responsewas forthcoming, complainant stopped paying bill in respect of one connection. Asa result of which the other electric connection of the complainant was also cut offfor non-payment of bill. The case of the complainant was that for want of irrigation,which required electricity, there was loss to the strawberry crop. In thesecircumstances complaint was filed before the National Commission in 1999 claimingdamages of rupees two crore.

Issue

The main issues involved in the case were

(i) Whether the complainant could request the Electricity Board to reducethe sanctioned load of 40 HP to 15 HP; and

(ii) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of Electricity Boardin disconnecting electricity supply to the complainant for non-paymentof bill.

Decision

The National Commission held that disconnection was on account of non-payment of electricity bills by the complainant. It is settled law that user cannot asa matter of right ask for reduction in load and expect the State Electricity Board toobey his command. While sanctioning the connection whole question of economicsof line laying, transformer and other costs incurred are looked into by the ElectricityBoard. Only after satisfying about the economic viability, connection is sanctioned.The National Commission held that user cannot unilaterally demand reduction inload and on refusal by the opposite party stop paying the bill. ‘No payment- Noconnection’ is the nature of the game. The National Commission did not find anydeficiency in service. Complainant had no right to stop paying bills of minimum

52


charges raised by the opposite party. There was also no material on record aboutthe loss of rupees two crore claimed especially relating to loss of income amountingto almost Rs. 1.50 crore. If there was loss, it was on account of complainant’s owndoing. If the stakes were so high, it would have been better for the complainant tokeep paying the bills and approach appropriate Forum for any relief relating to non-reduction of load. That was not done. Thus the claim, on account of abovementioned reasons, was dismissed. No order as to cost.

Complaint dismissed.

53


Ram Chander v. Sub-Divisional Officer (OP) DHBVNL Rewari

II (2003) CPJ 120 (NC)

Facts

The petitioner approached the Electricity Board for release of electricconnection for tubewell under ‘Tatkal Scheme”. However, the respondent declinedto accept deposit of Rs. 20,000 and to release the electric connection. Aggrievedcomplainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to therespondent to release electric connection for the tubewell under the said Schemeand also claimed compensation. Respondent contested the complaint on the groundthat during the course of checking by SDO on 1.2.2000, the petitioner was foundindulging in theft of energy through direct supply to the tubewell from thetransformer. Thus, a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed on the petitioner in additionto lodging FIR and a notice was issued on 2.2.2000. The said amount of penalty stillremained to be realized from the petitioner. Observing that theft of energy andimposition of penalty are distinct aspects, the District Forum directed the respondentto provide electric connection after 15 days of the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- and theamount should not to be adjusted towards the amount of penalty imposed.Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the Electricity Board filed an appeal in theState Commission. The State Commission reversed the order of District Forumholding that electric connection could not be released to the petitioner in the samepremises as he was found committing theft of energy and he also could not beregarded as a consumer of the respondent. Against that order, the complainantfiled a revision petition before the National Commission. Before the NationalCommission the Counsel for petitioner submitted that on the basis of mere lodgingof FIR, it could not be said that theft of energy was actually committed by thepetitioner and the State Commission, thus, ought not to have reversed the order ofDistrict Forum.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether the complainant was eligibleto get electricity supply having being involved in a theft of electricity.

Decision

Hearing the Revision Petition, the National Commission upheld the order ofthe State Commission. The National Commission held that allegedly stealing of

54


energy by the petitioner was taken note of only as a factor prima facie, disentitlinghim to the release of electricity for tubewell under the said Scheme and the guilt ofpetitioner in that behalf has to be gone into by a Magistrate on charge sheet beingfiled against him. In the opinion of the National Commission, impugned order didnot suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error, which may call for interferencein exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer ProtectionAct, 1986.

Revision Petition was, therefore, dismissed.


55


Sadhan Mukerjee v. CESC Ltd.

II (2003) CPJ 23 (NC)

Facts

Petitioner had an electric connection from C.E.S.C. Ltd. Accumulated bill for aperiod of 4 months from December 1995 to March 1996 was sent to him, whichexcluded him from availing slab benefits. C.E.S.C. Ltd. vide a letter dated November8, 1996 admitted mistake on its part and gave marginal relief. They expressed regretsfor the inconvenience and requested the petitioner to settle the account. Notsatisfied by the reply, petitioner moved the District Forum, which directed thepetitioner to deposit 50% of the bill amount and instructed the respondents not todisconnect the electric connection. It referred the bill for the disputed period fromMarch-August, 1996 to Chief Electricity Inspector (C.E.I) directing him to submit thereport within two months of the order and held that the report shall be bindingupon both the parties. C.E.I. looked into bills and ordered C.E.S.C. Ltd. to correct theconsolidated bill up to September 1998 amounting to Rs. 3,295.33/-. Not satisfied thepetitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed it on theground that the decision of the C.E.I. was binding on the parties and in case of anygrievance against the order of C.E.I., the petitioner should seek remedy before properForum. Against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner filed revisionpetition before the National Commission.

Issue

Was the order of C.E.I., as held by the State Commission, binding on the partiesor could be challenged in National Commission?

Decision

The National Commission held that there was no fault in the order of theDistrict Forum, which had observed that the decision of the C.E.I. on the disputed billshould be binding on both the parties. Though the petitioner filed the appeal butno relief was sought against the direction of the District Forum, in that sense itbecame final. What was being sought was compensation for harassment and lossof reputation. As the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the DistrictForum and before the C.E.I. regarding the bill amount their order became binding. Ifthe petitioner was not satisfied with the order of C.E.I. then the remedy was availableunder Section 36(2) of Indian Electricity Act, wherein the appeal could have been

56


filed before the appropriate Government authority or before an Advisor of Boardconstituted under the Act. Before the State Commission or the National Commissionthere was no prayer to refer the matter to the Electricity Inspector. The NationalCommission did not find any ground to interfere with the order of the StateCommission. It held that if there was any contravention of the order of the DistrictForum by the respondent, petitioner could approach the District Forum.

The revision petition was thus dismissed. The deficiency on the part of CESCLtd. was admitted by them vide letter dated 8.11.1996 and C.E.I. had also commentedadversely on the respondent which forced the petitioner to engage in litigation, forthis the National Commission awarded Rs. 5,000/- as costs to be paid by respondentwithin a period of eight weeks of the order.


57


Punjab Electricity Board v Pritpal Singh & Ors.

II (2003) CPJ 14 (NC)

Facts

The Complainants Pritpal Singh and others, residents of village Mansingh Walaof district Muktsar had applied for electricity connection for their tubewells. Ascheme was launched by the Government of Punjab for grant of tubewell connectionon priority basis in the areas of Muktsar District having waterlogging problem. Acircular was issued in 1997 by the Electricity Board in which waterlogged villageswere identified. As per this circular village Mansingh Wala was at serial No.78 of theseniority list. Thus, as per the direction of the Electricity Board, they deposited thenecessary amount for the connection in December 1997. However, in the year 1999,more villages of other two districts were declared as waterlogged and the residentsof those villages were also entered in the earlier list, as a result, the seniority of thecomplainants was disturbed. No reasons were given and perhaps it was due to someexternal influences. The respondents/complainants filed complaints before theDistrict Forum. They contended that the Electricity Board had not provided themelectricity as per the seniority list and it amounted to deficiency on the part ofElectricity Board. The District Forum issued necessary directions to the ElectricityBoard. Aggrieved, the Electricity Board appealed before the State Commission. TheCommission dismissed the appeals upholding the decision of the lower fora. Again,the Electricity Board filed revision petitions before the National Commission.However, during the proceeding before the National Commission, the counsel forthe Electricity Board informed the Commission that the demand note has beenissued to all the complainants and on their making payments thereof electricconnection to their tubewells shall be energized.

Issue

The issue raised in the case was that of deficiency in service on the part of PSEBin bypassing the seniority list of the complainants and not supplying electricconnection to their tubewells ever after depositing the required money.

Decision

The National Commission held that when the matter was taken up it wassubmitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has received instructionsto inform this Commission that the demand note has been issued to all the

58


complainants and on their making payments thereof electric connection to theirtubewells shall be energized. The National Commission appreciated that good sensehas prevailed on the petitioner and necessary action would be taken to energise thetubewells of the complainants/respondents.

The National Commission held that the revision petitions have no merit; ratherthey should not have been filed. The National Commission did not find any questionof law arising in these petitions for it to exercise its jurisdiction under clause (b) ofSection 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1956. The revision petitions were thusdismissed.


59


Faquir Chand v. S.D.O. (OP) Sub Division, HVPN

I (2003) CPJ 260 (NC)

Facts

The petitioner had a three-phase electricity connection from the respondentfor over two decades for running a flourmill and a sawmill. The meter installed forthe purpose got burst which was not replaced inspite of repeated requests. On thecontrary against an average of Rs. 1,000 or so per meter, he was issued a bill ofRs. 26,302 in July 1996 which was further enhanced to Rs. 29,804 in the bill issued inAugust, 1996. Further the respondent was being charged Rs. 53/- p.m. as line chargesfrom the last 23 years, which it couldn’t do, so these charges were required to berefunded. Aggrieved complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. TheDistrict Forum after hearing both the parties directed refund of “Service Line Charges”from the date when the transformer No.2 in village Gari was installed along withinterest @ 12% p.a. Against the order of the District Forum, appeals were filed by boththe parties before the State Commission. The State Commission through a commonorder modified the order of the District Forum and directed refund of line chargesfor the period of three years as per the instructions on the subject issued by therespondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation of Rs.5,000/- was dismissed. Both the parties filed revision petitions in the NationalCommission against the order of the State Commission. Before the NationalCommission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of theDistrict Forum was correct as it was based on facts/material on record and heshould be compensated for harassment caused to him. On the other hand it wasargued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the State Commission’s orderwas as per law and needs to be maintained.

Issue

The main issue before the National Commission was regarding adjudicationof line charges.

Decision

The National Commission held that three reliefs were sought by the petitionerbefore the District Forum. Two issues, one that of bill amount and second aboutinstallation of new meter had been resolved, only point left for adjudication relatedto line charges. Nothing had been shown by the petitioner that service charges

60


could be refunded beyond three years. What the State Commission had done was toact within the instructions on the subject. The State Commission could not beexpected to go beyond the Rule/Regulation/Instructions on the subject. The NationalCommission did not find any material to interfere with the order of the StateCommission, which was in conformity with the instructions on the subject. Nojurisdictional error was shown calling for interference with the order of the StateCommission. The order of the State Commission was thus upheld and both therevision petitions were dismissed as being devoid of merits. No orders as to costs.

Revision Petitions dismissed.

61


Sagar Rolling and Forgings and Ors. v.Maharashtra State Electricity Board

I (2003) CPJ 156 (NC)

Facts

The complainant Sagar Rolling and Forgings was the consumer ofMaharashtra State Electricity Board for running their machines and industries.They filed a complaint on 13th September 1996 before the National Commissionalleging deficiency in service on the part of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board(MSEB). They contended that due to interrupted supply of electricity to their industry,there was excess consumption of fuel oil and they suffered a huge loss from the year1986-87 to1993-94. They requested the National Commission to direct the ElectricityBoard to give compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/- quantified under different heads, toaward interest on the compensation claimed till the date of payment and to passsuch further orders as the Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case. The MSEB denied all allegations and submitted beforethe National Commission that the Electricity Board had filed two civil suits againstthe complainants towards the collection of arrear electricity charges.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission was whether therewas deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board and it was liable to paythe claimed compensation for the loss caused due to interrupted supply of electricityto the complainant’s industry.

Decision

The National Commission held that the alleged loss of profit was right from theyear 1986-87 to 1993-94 most of which was barred by limitation as the complaint wasfiled on 13. 9.1996. Also evidence would be required to prove the loss on account of excessconsumption of fuel oil due to interrupted electricity supply. All this would require agreat deal of evidence apart from interpretation of the terms of the agreement onwhich the power was agreed to be supplied to the complainants by the opposite party.On 19.12.2001 the Commission required the complainants to file evidence by means ofaffidavit within four weeks from that date. That was not done. Even on the date ofdecision amended complaint was not filed. The National Commission was of the viewthat such type of cases could be best tried in the civil court.

62


The National Commission therefore, dismissed the complaint. But held that,this would not come in the way of the complainant to approach the civil court orany other forum for the reliefs claimed and referred to the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held that for exclusion of the time spent in theseproceedings provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act can be invoked.


63


Radharani Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, GridCorporation of Orissa & Anr.

I (2003) CPJ 140 (NC)

Facts

The complainant started an industrial undertaking in 1984 and applied forelectric connection. However, there was delay in supply of electricity to the industrialundertaking as the power connection was granted only in the year 1993. Thereafterthe supply was erratic and on two occasions it was disconnected and again restored.Since the bills were not paid, the electric connection was disconnected on 3.12.97and remained disconnected. Thereafter complaint was filed on 21.9.1998 whencomplainant owed a sum of Rs. 6,85,683.10/- towards the bill for electricity chargesdue to the opposite parties. Complainant in his complaint before the NationalCommission alleged that initially there was delay in supplying the regular powerconnection to his factory and thereafter disconnection of the same “under the guiseof lifting the exemption of minimum charges”. This caused undue and severehardship and the factory came to standstill. The complainant claimed acompensation of Rs. 75 lakh for negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Theopposite parties contended that the complaint was barred by limitation in as muchas the cause of action arose in 1984. It was also stated that complicated questions offacts and law arose and that since a great deal of evidence would have to be led, soit was better that complainant be relegated to Civil Court. While denying theallegations of the complainant, it was stated that total outstanding amount fromthe complainant towards electric charges was Rs. 24,35,474.25/-. It was also addedthat (i) the Government of Orissa had given the benefit of exemption from paymentof minimum charges to all the industries covered under pre-92 IPR benefits but upto 31.7.1997 only. As such the petitioner was liable to pay minimum charges from 8/97 onwards which has been notified by erstwhile OSEB; and (ii) the petitioner hadfiled a case in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa for exemption of minimum chargeswherein the Hon’ble High Court has directed the petitioner to make adhoc paymentof rupees two lakh within one month for restoration of power supply. The petitionerhas not complied with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court till date and to avoidsuch payment the present proceedings had been initiated by the petitioner. However,before the National Commission, the complainant admitted filing of writ petitionby him in the High Court of Orissa but according to him those proceedings involveddifferent issue altogether. Complainant further informed that against the order of

64


the High Court directing him to deposit rupees two lakh as interim measures, SpecialLeave Petition has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it was pending.

Issue

The important issues before the National Commission were whether therewas deficiency in service on the part of Corporation in disconnecting electricitysupply to the factory of the complainant due to non-payment of bills and whetherthe complaint was time barred.

Decision

The National Commission held that after having gone to the High Court in thewrit petition challenging the levy of minimum charges, the complainant chose tofile this complaint claiming huge sum of Rs. 75 lakh. It was so because no court-feewas payable in a Consumer Forum. There was nothing on record to show as to howthis amount of Rs. 75 lakh has been arrived at. With the complaint certain documentswere filed but they were not found sufficient to prove the damages as claimed bythe complainant. Because of the above reasons the National Commission dismissedthe complaint. However, held that if the complainant chose to file a civil suit, thisdismissal would not come in its way and complainant may seek exclusion of timeunder Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In this connection reference was made tothe judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSGIndustrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC).


65


NEPA Ltd. v Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

I (2003) CPJ 138 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, NEPA Ltd, a public undertaking was the consumer of theMadhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB). The Undertaking filed a complaint on12th July 2000 before the National Commission alleging deficiency in service on thepart of Electricity Board. In its complaint, the complainant claimed a sum ofRs. 54, 75,03,540/- in total along with the interest @ 18 % p.a. on the claimed amountfrom 13th February 1999 till the date of payment. The claim made by undertakingincluded claim of Rs. 2,09,75,378.00/- due to excess charges recovered from thecomplainant, Rs. 6,00,43,217.00 /- as interest on the said amount @ 30% up to May,1998, Rs. 4, 05,31,783.00/- towards refund of illegal recovery of the Tariff Minimumcharges and Rs. 42,59,53,162.00/- towards consequential production losses as a resultof power failure, load shedding, disconnection etc, which included excessconsumption of high cost material like pulp and furnace oil, loss due to damage toplant machineries and loss of sales due to loss of production. The M.P.E.B denied allallegations and requested the National Commission to dismiss the complaint.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission by the complainantwas whether the M.P.E.B was liable to pay the compensation claimed, as it did notprovide sufficient electricity as per the agreement.

Decision

The National Commission held that a great deal of evidence both oral anddocumentary would be required for the complainant to prove its case as complicatedquestion of facts and law arose which were not possible for the National Commissionto decide in its summary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of SyncoIndustries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors, I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) held that suchtype of cases can not be decided in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. Incivil court parties will have full opportunities to lead evidence. Consumer Forum isnot meant to try the cases like the present one. In another case Dr. J. J. Merchant &Ors v. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that thereis no difficulty for the National Commission to decide such cases involvingcomplicated questions of law and facts. But then it is left to the wisdom of theNational Commission to take up a particular matter or not.

66


So the National Commission held that the case like the present one should beleft to be decided by the civil court. The Commission, therefore, rejected the complaintand left the complainant to go to Civil Court for the reliefs claimed or even to seekarbitration if permitted in law. However, it was held that the complainant may seekexclusion of time under Section14 of the Limitation Act while matter was pendingin this Commission, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofLaxmi Engineering Works v PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC).


67


Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & ors. v.Hotel Maria

I (2003) CPJ 101 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/ Complainant, Hotel Maria, was the consumer of electricitysupplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). He informed the ElectricityBoard on 24th September 1995 about the defective meter and requested to changeit. However, the Electricity Board replaced defective meter only in the first week ofMay 1996 after repeated requests. Thereafter the Board on 5th June 1996 issued anadditional bill for Rs. 49, 761.60/- payable by 11th July 1996, which the complainantreceived on 13th July, 1996.The bill was for the period of 26 months allegedly forexcess power consumed by the complainant. Aggrieved complainant filed acomplaint before the District Forum. He contended before the Forum that the billwas arbitrary and excessive and the arrear could not be claimed for such a longperiod. On the other hand, the Electricity Board submitted before the Forum thatduring inspection of the premises of the complainant on 7th July 1996 it was foundthat there were certain irregularities in the installations of the complainant. It wasalso submitted by the Board that if there was a dispute regarding the correctness ofthe meter reading, it has to be decided under Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Actand pleaded to dismiss the complaint.

The District Forum held that there was no evidence to show that the complaintwas about the non-functioning of the meter. Also there was nothing on the recordto show that the complainant had made any theft of electricity. The District Forumalso took note of the fact that there was no criminal prosecution lodged againstthe complainant by the Electricity Board in case there was theft of electricity. TheDistrict Forum held that the impugned bill was rather excessive and directed theBoard to make afresh calculation taking six months average reading of the newmeter from the date of its installation and then accordingly to calculate the previouscharges. Aggrieved with this order, the Electricity Board went in appeal before theState Commission. The State Commission upheld the decision of the District Forum.However, the State Commission was of the view that proper direction should bemade to take the average of energy consumption of the three months succeedingthe change of meter and then to determine the consumption of energy for the sixmonths prior to issue of the bill. Thus the State Commission modified the order ofthe District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Against the decision of the State

68


Commission, the Electricity Board filed a revision petition before the NationalCommission.

Issue

The issue raised before the National Commission was whether there wasdeficiency in service on the part of the Board in sending the arrear bill ofRs. 49, 761.60/- to the complainant and the direction of the District Forum asconfirmed and upheld by the State Commission was in accordance with the law.

Decision

Hearing the revision petition, the National Commission upheld the decision ofthe District Forum as duly modified by the State Commission and dismissed therevision petition. The National Commission was of the opinion that it was not a fitcase for the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction under Clause (b) of the Section 21of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


69


Panchayati Akhara Nirmla v.Punjab State Electricity Board &Ors

I (2003) CPJ 77 (NC)

Facts

The Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent No.3 beforethe State Commission and the National Commission was tenant of the petitioner.He applied for the grant of electric motor connection to his tube-well in hisagricultural field. He deposited the requisite fee before the Punjab State ElectricityBoard (P.S.E.B.), but the Board did not provide him electric connection even afterconsiderable period. Aggrieved by that, the tenant filed a complaint before theDistrict Forum against the P.S.E.B. and Sub-Divisional officer of the Board allegingdeficiency in service on their part. The District Forum allowed the complaint on27.11.2001 and directed the respondents to release electric connection to thecomplainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy ofthe order, if he fulfills all other requirements. The District Forum also granted Rs.250/- as cost to the complainant.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Panchayati Akhara Nirmla, ownerand landlord filed an appeal before the State Commission alleging that the order ofthe District Forum was not correct in the absence of owner of the land being partyto the complaint. Along with the appeal, the landlord filed applications (i) for grantof leave to file appeal; (ii) for extension of period of limitation and (iii) for staying therelease of connection to the alleged tube-well of the tenant/complainant beforethe District Forum. The State Commission hearing the appeal dismissed it and heldthat the appellant being not a party before the District Forum was not competentto file appeal. Other two applications were also dismissed.

Aggrieved, Panchayati Akhara Nirmla, filed a revision petition before theNational Commission alleging that his appeal and applications should have beenaccepted by the State Commission as he was the real owner of the land. He furthercontended that supply of electricity to the tube-well was an improvement underSection 65 of Punjab Tenancy Act and for that assent of the landlord was imperative.The Counsel of the appellant also informed the National Commission that civil suithas also been filed in this regard.

Issue

The important issue involved in the case was whether the petitioner not being

70


party before the District Forum could appeal before the State Commission andwhether the order of the District Forum was in accordance with the law underConsumer Protection Act.

Decision

The National Commission after going through the Instruction No. 23 of theSales Manual of the Board and Sections 64,65 and Section 4 (19) of the Punjab TenancyAct in detail dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the District Forum.Rejecting the contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner, the National Commissionheld that the Counsel for the petitioner was not right in his submission. Moreoverthe complaint has to be seen from angle of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.There cannot be any dispute that complainant before the District Forum was aconsumer if he deposited necessary charges for release of electric connection. Therewas certainly deficiency in service when the P.S.E.B. and the sub-divisional officerdid not release the electric connection. They were bound by Instruction No.23 andthe District Forum rightly held that refusal to release the electric connection wasclearly deficiency in service on their part.

Rejecting the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that InstructionNo.23 was contrary to Punjab Tenancy Law, the National Commission held thatthey did not find any contradiction and if the petitioner landlord has a right underthe Punjab Tenancy Act, they could well approach the Civil Court. Petitioner wasstranger in the proceeding before the District Forum in view of the instruction,which required the Electricity Board to give electric connection to the tenants.Commenting on the civil suit filed by the petitioner, the National Commission heldthat the plaint of that suit was not before them and they did not know what werethe reliefs claimed by the petitioner therein against the respondents. Accordinglythe Revision Petition was dismissed.


71


Ram Niwas Parashar v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board,Jaipur

2003 (1) CPR 193 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, an agriculturist was having an electric connection througha meter. Excess bill was sent to him on the basis that the meter had stopped due todefect. The complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum alleging deficiencyin service on the part of the Electricity Board. The District Forum held that in thecircumstance, the board could recover charges @ Rs.28/- per month, which were theminimum charges. The Board filed an appeal against the order of the DistrictForum in the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of theDistrict Forum. It held that as it was a connection for agricultural purposes, thecomplainant had to be charged flat rate @ Rs. 96/- per month under condition No.19(d)(vii)(ii) of General Conditions of Supply of Electricity and had to pay Rs.4.50/- asmeter rent. Against the order of the State Commission the complainant filed revisionin the National Commission.

Issue

Did the order of the State Commission required interference by the NationalCommission or it was according to law?

Decision

The National Commission dismissed the revision petition holding that therewas no jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission.

Revision dismissed.

72


S.A. Raja v.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors.

III (2002) CPJ 322 (NC)

Facts

Under a certain policy of the state of Tamil Nadu, it agreed, to purchaseelectricity from H.T. Consumers who were also having captive generating plantas it was hoped that there would be excess generation of electricity in those plantsnot required for use. There was also arrangement that a bank would beestablished under which electricity generated by H.T. Consumers would come inthe lines of the Electricity Board of the State Government from where captiveconsumers could also draw the electricity and State Government would chargecommission @ 2% of the energy generated by the captive consumer. It was alsoproposed that in case the energy generated was more than the requirement ofthe captive consumers that could be adjusted in the following months and ifenergy drawn from the lines of the Electricity Board was more than that generatedby the consumers they would be billed for that. The complainant S. Raja purchasedtwo wind Mills of NEPC that were earlier having arrangement with the TamilNadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The complainant filed a complaint before the StateCommission alleging deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board and its differentofficials and claiming compensation on different grounds. Meanwhile, thecomplaint was withdrawn by the complainant resulting in its dismissal by theState Commission.

Thereafter, a fresh complaint was filed before the National Commissionrequesting the Commission to direct the Electricity Board to give the complainantseparate service connection to the said two wind Mills, to pay Rs. 80,00,000/- beingthe compensation towards the loss caused to the complainant till date, to pay Rs.2,20,000/- per month from the date of complaint before the National Commissionto the date of service connection, towards future loss and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towardsthe costs of the proceeding.

Issue

The main issues involved in the case before the National Commission were,whether the complainant was a consumer, was there any deficiency in service onthe part of the Electricity Board and whether the complaint was maintainableunder the Consumer Protection Act.

73


Decision

The National Commission held that apart from the fact that complex questionof both law and facts arise in the case for which the National Commission was notthe right Tribunal to adjudicate upon, the petitioner was not a consumer to invokethe jurisdiction of the National Commission. The National Commission noted thatearlier the complaint was filed in the State Commission, which was dismissed aswithdrawn, for this the complainant could not provide any satisfactory justification.Once having invoked the jurisdiction of the State Commission and withdrawingthe complaint without any apparent reason, a complainant cannot again invokethe jurisdiction of the National Commission. On enquiring from the counsel for thecomplainant as to under what circumstances the complaint was withdrawn fromthe State Commission, the answer was that in the complaint amount claimed wasRs. 20 lakh and during the pendency of the complaint further damages accruedevery month which made the complainant withdraw the complaint. The NationalCommission found the statement to be very strange. After going through theprovision under Clause (d) of Section 2 (i), the National Commission further heldthat the complainant was not a consumer as the complainant was not buying anygoods and was also not hiring or availing any services from the opposite parties forconsideration. Thus, the National Commission dismissed the complaint leaving thecomplainant to seek its remedy elsewhere.


74


Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division No. 11, KarnatakaState Electricity Board & Ors. v.

Neelakanta Gouda Siddana Gouda Patil

III (2002) CPJ 312 (NC)

Facts

Complainant had an electric connection for the pump set meant for irrigationpurposes. The distance between the poles was too much and the wires were hangingloose due to distance. Complainant informed the authorities of the Board to rectifythe defect but no action was taken. On the night of 10.3.1996, due to wind, the electricwires between the poles touched each other. As a result there was sparking resultingin fire on the sugarcane crops of the complainant. Due to fire the sugarcane crops,coconut trees and chikku trees were burnt. Complainant filed a complaint in theDistrict Forum claiming a loss of Rs. 4,15,825/-. The District Forum allowed thecomplaint holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of Board in notproviding safe electricity through the wires passing over the field of the complainant.The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid within onemonth, else it was to carry interest @ 18% per annum. The Electricity Board filedappeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum.Complainant also filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Both theappeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Boardfiled revision petition before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue was whether the damage caused to the crops of complainantdue to fire caused by sparking in the wire constituted deficiency in service on thepart of Board.

Decision

The National Commission did not find any error in the order of the DistrictForum as affirmed by the State Commission to exercise their jurisdiction underConsumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus the petition was dismissed.


75


Karnataka Electricity Board now known as KarnatakaPower Transmission Corporation v.Dr. M. S. Shankar Bhat

III (2002) CPJ 312 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant Dr. M.S. Shankar Bhat was a medical practitionerhaving an electricity connection from Karnataka Power Transmission CorporationLtd. He filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service onthe part of the Electricity Board. He alleged that the Electricity Board has chargedexcessive electricity bills as the rate applicable to him was LT3 (b) but he was wronglycharged LT3 (a) rates. The District Forum on the material on record allowed thecomplaint and directed the Electricity Board to refund the excess amount ofelectricity bill quantified at Rs. 21, 225.70/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. TheForum also awarded Rs. 1000/- compensation and cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant.Aggrieved by that order of the District Forum, the Electricity Board filed an appealbefore the State Commission with a prayer to dismiss the complaint as it was barredby limitation. However, the State Commission did not accept the request anddismissed the appeal. Against the order of the State Commission, Electricity Boardfiled revision petition before the National Commission contending the complaintas barred by limitation.

Issue

The main issue was whether there is deficiency in service on the part of theElectricity Board or the complaint was barred by limitation.

Decision

The National Commission after going through the case and decisions of boththe District Forum and the State Commission held that there was no ground tointerfere with the orders of the lower fora and Commission did not find it a fit caseto exercise their jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer ProtectionAct, 1986. Thus revision petition was dismissed.


76


NeelKamal Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board

III (2002) CPJ 278 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, NeelKamal Industries was a small-scale industry havingan electricity connection in its premises for running a 70 HP machine. When theofficers of the M.P. Electricity Board visited the premises, they found that themeter was faulty and one phase was not giving reading on the meter. Thereafter,they sent two bills amounting Rs. 11,080/- and Rs. 6,628/- to the Industry forpayment. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum allegingdeficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board contendedthat the bills were correct and since one phase was not recording any reading onthe meter the additional charges were calculated in respect of the said phase onthe basis of the bill for the two phases already charged in regular bill. Thus, plea ofthe Electricity Board was that they had not over charged or charged anythingextra.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint with cost. Against it thecomplainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commissionupheld the order of the District Forum. Against this order, the complainant filed arevision petition before the National Commission. The complainant pleaded, beforethe Commission that if the meter was faulty the Electricity Board could not raise asupplementary bill without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector, whichwas not done in the present case.

Issue

The issues raised before the National Commission were whether theElectricity Board was right in sending arrear bills of the faulty meter withoutreferring the matter to the Electrical Inspector and whether the order of theDistrict Forum affirmed by the State Commission was in accordance with theprovisions of CPA.

Decision

The National Commission accepted the revision petition and set aside theimpugned order of the lower fora. Accepting the contentions of the appellant, theNational Commission directed the respondent, Electricity Board to proceed inaccordance with the provisions of Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910. The

77


Commission further held that the supplementary bill could be raised by themonly after obtaining report from the Electrical Inspector if that happened to beadverse to the petitioner and if the amount has already been recovered it shouldbe adjusted in the future bills. Thus, the National Commission allowed the revisionpetition.

Revision Petition allowed.

78


Karnataka State Electricity Board v. Smt. Sharavva & Ors.

III (2002) CPJ 269 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant Smt. Sharavva and others were the legalrepresentatives of Kuber who died of electrocution on 8th July 1996. The deceasedcame in contact with a live wire, which had snapped from the electric pole supplyingelectricity to feed his pump set, fitted to bore well for irrigation. They filed acomplaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part ofK.S.E.B. in not supplying electricity properly and safely, resulting in death of theirbread earner. They contended before the District Forum that the power line wasloose and hung very low and it was precariously connected to the poles on eitherside. It was also alleged that power line was broken at various places and mendedshoddily and no step was taken by the Electricity Board inspite of many complaintsmade by the deceased and his neighbours to the officers of Electricity Board. TheDistrict Forum held in favour of complainant and directed the Electricity Board topay Rs. 1,70,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with interest @12% p.a. from thedate of complaint and further direction was given as to how the amount was to beshared among the legal representatives of Kuber.

The Electricity Board appealed before the State Commission who dismissedthe appeal but modified the order of the District Forum. The State Commissionafter examining various provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 as to theresponsibility and care to be exercised by the Electricity Board for safe supply ofelectricity to the consumers dismissed the appeal. Modifying the compensationamount, the State Commission directed the Electricity Board to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint. The Commission also awardedRs. 10,000/- to complainant No.1 for loss of consortium. A direction as to how theamount was to be kept was given since some of the legal representatives wereminor. Aggrieved, the Electricity Board then filed revision petition before the NationalCommission against the order of the State Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was any deficiency onthe part of the Electricity Board in not supplying safe and proper electricity to theconsumer and what shall be the quantum of compensation in case of deficiency inservice.

79


Decision

The National Commission after examining the matter in detail held that itwas not a case for the State Commission to reduce the amount of compensation asawarded by the District Forum. The National Commission further held that thedeceased was a consumer and there was deficiency in service on the part of thepetitioner Electricity Board for which it was liable to pay compensation. Thusfinding no merit in Revision Petition, the Commission dismissed it.


80


Gwalior Ice Factory v. M.P. Electricity Board

III (2002) CPJ 262 (NC)

Facts

The appellant/complainant was the owner of the Gwalior Ice Factory, availingelectricity under an agreement with the respondent, M.P. Electricity Board. Hecomplained about excessive bills of electricity to the concerned authority of theBoard. The matter went to the Electricity Board for adjudication of the disputedbill under Sub-clause (a) of Clause 26 of the agreement. Under the provision in26(a) “in the event of any dispute or difference as to the correctness of any bill orbills prescribed under the terms thereof, the consumer shall nevertheless paysuch bill or bills within the aforesaid period of twenty one days. Any adjustmentnecessary due to incorrectness of such bill or bills shall be made by the Board inthe next ensuing bill after the settlement of the said dispute of difference.” Disputewas settled in favour of the petitioner, however, he still complained that he shouldhave been paid interest on that amount of the electricity bill which was foundexcessive.

Aggrieved by that, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forumalleging deficiency in service on the part of the Board. The District Forum dismissedthe complaint and held that there could not be any deficiency in service as allegedby the complainant. Against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filedan appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appealand upheld the order of the District Forum. Again feeling aggrieved by the order ofthe State Commission, the complainant filed a Revision Petition before the NationalCommission.

Issue

The issue raised before the National Commission by the complainant/appellant was whether there was deficiency on the part of Electricity Board in notgiving interest on the paid amount towards excessive bills.

Decision

The National Commission held that when the agreement itself provided forsettlement of the dispute and the petitioner had availed of the remedy, it was difficultto see as to how he could then come to the Forum under the Consumer ProtectionAct complaining deficiency in service. The District Forum was not Appellate

81


Authority over the respondent Electricity Board. The National Commission heldthe complaint was not a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Clause (b) ofSection 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition was thusdismissed.


82


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Rattan Lal

III (2002) CPJ 138 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, Rattan Lal filed a complaint before the DistrictForum alleging deficiency on the part of Haryana State Electricity Board. In hiscomplaint he claimed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of his house havingcaught fire and injury suffered by his cattle due to spark by a live wire passing overhis hut. He alleged that the fire caused burn injuries to his two buffaloes, one cowand two calves and damaged the household goods. Holding deficiency in serviceDistrict Forum allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation ofRs. 10,000/- as claimed by the complainant. Aggrieved, Electricity Board appealedbefore the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal upholding the order ofthe District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the H.S.E.B. filed revision petition before theNational Commission against the decision of the State Commission.

Issue

The important issues involved in the case were whether the complainant wasa consumer and whether there was deficiency on the part of Electricity Board whenspark from the live wire passing over the complainant’s hut resulted in fire causinginjury and loss to the complainant.

Decision

The National Commission, allowed the revision petition filed by the H.S.E.B.The National Commission setting aside the orders of lower foras held that approachof both the District Forum and the State Commission was not correct and in fact,against the law. It may be that the spark from live electricity wire caused damageto the complainant but there was no question of deficiency in service on the part ofElectricity Board as it was not the case of either of the parties that electricity wasbeing supplied by the Board to the hut of the complainant. It would appear that itwas the complainant who constructed his hut when live electricity wires werealready passing to that area. Board may be guilty of any tortuous act but it certainlycould not be complained of any deficiency in service. Complainant could not be saidto be a consumer. Dismissing the complaint the National Commission allowedrevision petition with no order as to cost and set aside the impugned orders of theDistrict Forum and the State Commission.


83


Jaya Shree Insulators v. West Bengal State Electricity Board

III (2002) CPJ 67 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, Jaya Shree Insulators was the consumer of electricitysupplied by the West Bengal State Electricity Board (W.B.S.E.B). It filed a complaintbefore the National Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of theElectricity Board. It alleged that due to interrupted power supply and fluctuation involtage unit could not run properly and as a result the company suffered a hugeloss and damages. In the complaint, the National Commission was requested todirect the Electricity Board to pay the compensation of Rs. 44, 76,60,000/- with interestat the rate of 24% and costs, etc. It was contended that the claim was to compensatethe amount spent i.e., Rs. 25 lakh towards providing dedicated 33 KV line and 33 KV S/S exclusively, Rs. 18,60,500/- towards a bank guarantee and Rs. 22,38,30,000/- towardsloss of production.

Issue

The issue to be considered by the National Commission was whetherinterrupted power and alleged fluctuation of voltage, which caused huge damageand loss of production to the complainant company constituted deficiency inservice on the part of the Electricity Board and whether the claimed amount ofover Rs. 44 crore by the complainant was as per the provisions of ConsumerProtection Act.

Decision

The National Commission held that the complaint and different claimsthereby show that a great deal of evidence would be required both oral anddocumentary to prove such a huge loss. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgmentin the case of Synco Industries v State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur and Others, I (2002) CPJ16 (SC), the Commission held that it was not a case, which could be decided insummary jurisdiction and directed the complainant to seek relief in Civil Court orany other Forum. However, the National Commission referring to the SupremeCourt’s decision in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v PSG Industrial Institute, II(1995) CPJ 1 SC, held that if the appellant chose to file a suit for the relief claimed in

84


those proceedings he can do so according to law and can claim the benefit of Section14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedingsunder the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitationprescribed for such a suit.


85


S. Kulandairajan v. Junior Engineer, Rural/North,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr.

III (2002) CPJ 51 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, S. Kulandairajan was having electricity connection at hishouse for domestic purposes. He rented out his premises to a tenant who wantedelectricity for commercial purposes. Accordingly, the complainant requested theElectricity Board to change his Tariff system from Tariff-I to Tariff IX. For conversionof Tariff I to IX Rs. 750/- was to be paid by way of deposit and Rs. 500/- per KW towardsdevelopment charges. Since the complainant availed 7 KW power, he was requiredto pay Rs. 3,500/- towards development charges. The Electricity Board changed theTariff I to Tariff IX but inadvertently missed to claim the development charges.

After the tenant left the premises intimation was sent to the respondentsthat petitioner wanted to change the connection back from Tariff-IX to Tariff-I. Atthis point of time respondents pointed out those earlier charges of Rs. 3,500/- hadnot been paid by the petitioner. In the absence of payment of difference indevelopment charges of Rs. 2,500 i.e. Rs. 3, 500-1,000, electric connection was notchanged from Tariff-IX on Tariff-I. Complaining deficiency in service for beingcharged at the commercial rate, petitioner went to the District Forum. Allowingthe complaint, District Forum directed that service connection to be changed toTariff-I from Tariff-IX, Rs. 2,500/- required to be paid by the complainant towardsdevelopmental charges be waived and to pay the complainant the excess electricalcurrent consumption charges quantified at Rs. 1, 200/-. Further direction was torefund to the petitioner Rs. 450/- being the amount of charges already deposited.Complainant was awarded Rs. 500/- as costs.

Against this order of the District Forum, Electricity Board filed an appeal beforethe State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal held thatthere was no deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board. Aggrieved bythe order of the State Commission, the complainant filed a Revision Petition beforethe National Commission.

Issue

The main issue raised by the complainant before the National Commissionwas whether there was any deficiency on the part of Electricity Board in not

86


changing the Tariff and claiming the development charges and whether the StateCommission was right in dismissing the appeal.

Decision

The National Commission held that no doubt the amount of Rs. 2,500/- beingdifference in development charges for conversion from Tariff I to IX was payable bythe petitioner to the Electricity Board but that was no ground for not convertingon his request the Tariff from IX to I and to bill him all this period at the commercialrate. The State Commission was however right that there was no justification forthe District Forum to direct waiver of Rs. 2,500/- which were payable by thecomplainant. Thus, the National Commission directed the petitioner/complainantto pay Rs. 2,500/- as difference in development charges to Electricity Board. It alsodirected the Electricity Board to calculate the difference in commercial and domesticrates of electricity from 1.12.95 till the time of conversion from Tariff IX to I. If in thecalculation any amount was found to be paid by the petitioner, the petitioner shallpay the same along-with the next electricity bill and if any amount was found to bepaid by the Electricity Board, the amount shall be adjusted in future bills payable bythe petitioner. Directions given by the District Forum for payment of Rs. 1,200/- asthe excess amount of electricity charges and the amount of Rs. 450/- as depositcharges were set aside. With above modifications, the Petition was allowed. Noorder as to the cost.


87


M/s Kailash Chand Jain, Managing Director, M/s. SaraogiOxygen Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.

2002(3) CPR 284(NC)

Facts

The complainant was the Managing Director of M/s. Saraogi Oxygen Ltd. Theunit was having an electricity connection from the Bihar State Electricity Boardsince 1988. The unit was never supplied continuous and adequate power. Thecomplainant had also filed a writ petition in 1995 in Patna High Court for a directionto allow proportionate reduction in demand charges. Patna High Court issued adirection to the Electricity Board to consider the grievance of the petitioner toallow a proportionate reduction in demand charges and dispose of the same. Thecomplainant, later in 2002 filed a complaint in the National Commission claiminga sum of Rs. 4,65,53,626/- for the loss suffered from September 1988 till January 1996on account of the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Out of totalamount Rs.10 lakh was claimed on account of mental torture, agony andharassment.

Issue

The main issue was whether discontinuous and inadequate power supplyconstituted deficiency on part of the Electricity Board.

Decision

The National Commission held that the complaint raised complex issues whichcould not be decided in summary jurisdiction. A great deal of evidence bothdocumentary and oral would be required to prove the case. Referring to the SupremeCourt decision in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur &Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 1, the National Commission dismissed the complaint but held that itwould not be an impediment for the complainant in approaching the Civil Court orany other appropriate forum. Further in view of the decision of the Supreme Court inLaxmi Engineering Work is v. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the NationalCommission held that complainant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of theLimitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under theConsumer Protection Act, 1986 while computing the period of limitation prescribedin such a suit.


88


The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), Chennai v. A.G.Swaminathan

2002 (3) CPR 224 (NC)

Facts

Complainant wanted to start a small industry. For that he made an applicationfor a 3 phase (2 K.V.) electric connection. He in fact wanted two separate connectionsof 1HP and the other of 2HP. For that he paid a sum of Rs. 3,200/- as demanded by thepetitioner. Inspite of that he was not given electric connection and had to close hisunit. He therefore, sought refund of the amount deposited, which was denied by theelectricity department. The complainant filed complaint in the District Forumalleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner. The claim was resisted onthe plea that connection was sanctioned but the complainant did not come forwarddespite seven days notice to take it and it was cancelled. Thus no refund could bemade. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. However, the appealfiled by the complainant was allowed by the State Commission. The StateCommission was of the view that the action of the petitioner in sending notice ofseven days was not in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Supply Act, 1994and the petitioner had no right to forfeit earnest money and development charges.It directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 3,200/- and also awardedRs.10,000/- for mental agony and torture. Against the order of the State Commissionthe revision petition was filed before the National Commission by the petitioner.

Issue

The main issue was whether cancellation of the connection and non-refundof charges constitute deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

Decision

The National Commission directed to recover the amount of Rs.10,000/- fromthe Assistant. Executive Engineer, petitioner. However, the Electricity Departmentshould recover the amount after notice to the petitioner and after hearing him.

The revision petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Revision dismissed.

89


P.S.E.B. Mohali v. Guriqbal Singh Batra

2002(3) CPR 173(NC)

Facts

The Complainant, Guriqubal Singh Batra was tenant of Mr. Tarlochan Singh.The owner of the premises had an electric connection for medium industrial supplywith a sanctioned load of 75 KW. The complainant was running a manufacturingunit – Delta Rubber Mills in the premises. The Electricity Board had installed apower meter and a light meter. These two meters were destroyed as a result ofscuffle between two employees of the complainant. A report was lodged with theBoard to change the meters and replace the seals on 3.2.1997. The meters werereplaced with new ones on 20.2.1997. However, the old meters were not removed incontravention of the instruction No.109 of the Sales Manual. On 2.1.1998 in theabsence of the complainant some officials of the Board checked the old meters andreported that the glass and the seals of the meters were broken. On the basis of thata demand of Rs. 2,08,720/- was raised and electric supply was disconnected in violationof Instruction Nos.109 and 201 of the Sales Manual. Efforts of the complainant toget the electric connections restored went in vain. He filed a civil suit for an interiminjunction, which was not granted. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaintbefore the State Commission for a direction to the Electricity Board to restore theelectricity connection, to quash the demand raised on 2.1.1998 and claimed acompensation of Rs. 6,20,000/-. The State Commission found the Board guilty ofdeficiency in service and allowed the complaint. It directed the opposite party torestore the electricity connection and quashed the demand of Rs. 2,08,720/- raisedby Electricity Board. The complainant was also awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Against the order of the State Commission firstappeal was filed in the National Commission by the Board.

Issue

The main issue was whether the non-removal of old meters and disconnectionof the electric connection by the opposite party constituted deficiency in service onthe part of Board.

Decision

The main point raised by the appellant was that the Board was empowered todisconnect a connection without prior notice of seven days and the seven days

90


notice was not mandatory. The National Commission held that in certain cases ofthe power theft etc. notice may not be necessary yet in the context of present casesuch disconnection was arbitrary, high handed and unwarranted. Because themeters, which were found faulty, had earlier been disconnected on the request ofconsumer himself, new meters had no flaw and the charges as per new meterswere being regularly paid. It was in fact failure on part of the Board in not removingold meters after installing new meters. They could not be allowed to take theexistence of old meters as the basis of launching any action when it was notconclusively proved that any electricity was being drawn through the old meters,which have already been replaced.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the National Commission dismissed the appealand upheld the order of the State Commission. However, it modified the order of theState Commission by deleting the award of compensation of rupees one lakh. Noorder as to costs was made.

Appeal disposed of.

91


M/s. Doneria Iron & Steel v. The Chairman, UPSEB PowerCorporation & Ors.

2002 (3) CPR 156 (NC)

Facts

The complainant filed a complaint in the National Commission claiming asum of Rs. 1,72,32,822.00/- as compensation against UPSEB Power Corporation. Thecomplainant alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of oppositeparties. There were also allegations of forgery and forging of records. The amountof compensation included compensation for defamation on account of loss ofreputation, loss of income etc. Certain other directions were also sought.

Issue

The main issue was whether it was possible to decide such complicated matterin the summary jurisdiction of the National Commission.

Decision

The National Commission observed that there were 600 documents filed bythe complainant and in reply the written statement and other documents run into258 pages. The case required a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary. Itwas not possible to decide such a matter in summary jurisdiction. Referring to theSupreme Court judgment in Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur &Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) the National Commission held that it would not like to dealwith the matter and left the complainant to knock the doors of civil court or anyother appropriate forum for relief claimed. Further, it was held that the complainantwould be entitled to seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the LimitationAct in case it files a suit as held by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v.PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

Thus the complaint was dismissed.

Complaint disposed of.

92


K.D. Sebastian v. The Electrical Inspector,Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

II (2002) CPJ 2 (NC)

Facts

The appellant/complainant, K.D. Sebastian was the consumer of K.S.E.B. forrunning his small Oil Mill since 1974. His electricity bill varied between Rs. 278/- andRs. 337/- for the period August 1986 to December 1986. The problem of excessivebilling started in January 1987, when he was served a bill for Rs. 920.65/-. He approachedthe Electricity Board to correct it. When he did not receive any satisfactory replyfrom electricity board he approached the High Court for relief. The High Courtdirected the Electricity Board to issue a revised bill on the basis of averageconsumption of electricity by the appellant. Meanwhile, the Electricity Boarddisconnected the electricity supply to him on 31.1.1987 for non-payment of the bills.With regard to this the High Court ordered that in case the appellant paid a sum ofRs. 500/- plus reconnection charges to the Electricity Board, then the ElectricityBoard should restore the connection. However, the appellant alleged that when hewanted to deposit the said amount the Electricity Board refused to accept it.

The Electricity Board again served a notice to the appellant to pay the entirearrear by 4.5.1988. On non- payment of the bills the Electricity Board dismantled theservice main and metering equipment on 20.6.1988. Against this, the appellant againmoved the High Court. The High Court ordered the Electricity Board to preparefresh bill from January 1987 onwards within two weeks and the appellant to file hisobjections within two weeks of receipt of the bill. The High Court also directed theElectricity Board to dispose of these objections expeditiously. Accordingly, theElectricity Board sent the appellant a fresh bill amounting to Rs. 7828.40/- for theperiod of August 1986 to May 1988 and the appellant also filed objections, whichwere overruled by the Electricity Board. Aggrieved by that, the appellant againapproached the High Court. The High Court disposed of the matter in February 1992and directed the appellant to seek the remedy under Clause 48 of the Regulationsrelating to Conditions of Supply of Electricity Energy, 1990. However, appeal filed asper the direction of the High Court was rejected.

Aggrieved by that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the StateCommission claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,74,041.4 with interest at the rate of 18%from the date of filing of complaint for the loss he suffered due to closing of mill andinterest to be paid to the Bank from which he obtained the loan. The State Commission

93


dismissed the complaint on two grounds holding the complaint as barred by timeand finding no deficiency on the part of Electricity Board. Aggrieved by that order, theappellant/complainant filed an appeal before the National Commission.

Issue

The important issues raised before the National commission were,

(i) whether the decision of the State Commission dismissing the complaintas time barred was as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and

(ii) whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the ElectricityBoard in sending the complainant an excessive bill and disconnection ofelectricity supply to his mill.

Decision

The National Commission held that cause of action i.e. disconnection of electricconnection arose on 31.1.1987 and the complaint was filed in 1992 i.e. after five yearsof cause of action. So it was clearly barred by limitation. The National Commissiondid not accept the contentions that since there was a continued cause of actionhence period of limitation should commence from February 1992, when in the thirdpetition filed before the High Court it passed order. The facts were correct on theface of it but CPA had its time limit defined. For any request for condoning the delay/justifying the delay, an application was required to be filed explaining the reasons/causes in support of the delay so that the competent court could take a view. In theinstance case no such action was taken, in the absence of which the NationalCommission could not but agree with the decision of the State Commission holdingthe complaint time barred.

On the question of deficiency on the part of Electricity Board, the NationalCommission held that the High Court had ordered reconnection to be given to theappellant on depositing of Rs. 500/- plus reconnection charges, there was no materialon record to support any follow up of the order of the High Court. In fact, the StateCommission has held that till the passing of order by it, the appellant had not appliedfor reconnection after completing the necessary formalities. The NationalCommission further held that had the appellant done so, his Mill would have beenrunning enabling him to pay the outstanding amount to the K.S.E.B.

Thus, the National Commission dismissed the appeal holding that there was noground to interfere with the order of the State Commission. No costs were awarded.

Appeal dismissed.

94


S.D.O, Haryana State Electricity Board v Amrit Singh

I (2002) CPJ 16 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, Amrit Singh had a 0.5 KW electricity connection from theHaryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) and there were only four live points in hishouse. He made a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in serviceon the part of the Electricity Board for serving excessive electricity bills. He allegedthat some officers of the Department gave wrong information to the Board on thebasis of which wrong bills were sent to him. The District Forum allowed thecomplaint and directed the Board to correct the bills on the basis of the averageconsumption for the last one-year without charging any surcharge or interest.Complainant was also awarded Rs. 500/- as costs. Dissatisfied with decision of theDistrict Forum, the Electricity Board made an appeal before the State Commission.It was contended by the Board that there was no deficiency in service and allegationsmade by complainant were not correct. The State Commission upheld the decisionof the District Forum. Again, feeling aggrieved with the dismissal of appeal, theElectricity Board filed revision petition before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was any deficiency inservice on the part of the HSEB in sending bills, which were alleged by thecomplainant to be excessive and wrong and whether the decision of the DistrictForum upheld by the State Commission was in accordance with the law underConsumer Protection Act.

Decision

The National Commission after hearing the revision petition dismissed it andupheld the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission. TheNational Commission held that there were no grounds for them to take a differentview in exercise of its jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. RevisionPetition was thus dismissed.


95


Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr.. v.M/s New Pal Textiles

2002 (1) CPR 56 (NC)

Facts

The complainant was tenant of one Mr. Kuldip Singh. He was using the premisesas showroom. The sanctioned load to the premises was 3.7 KW. Petitioner in asurprise inspection on 7.5.1996 found that complainant was having load more than10 KWs, an excessive load of 6.62 KWs. The consumer refused to sign the reportregarding the excess load and charges on it. A notice was issued to Kuldip Singh on24.5.1996 for disconnection of the electric connection, as the bill for excessive loadamounting to Rs. 8,400/- had not been paid. The connection was disconnected. Theamount was paid on 27.7.1996. But the connection was not restored as thedisconnection was permanent and till the reconnection charges of Rs. 1,200/- werenot paid the electric connection could not be restored. A suit for eviction filed byKuldip Singh against the complainant was also pending since 1994 in the Civil Court.The Board was not party to the suit. However, complainant on 1.8.1996 filed anapplication in that suit seeking restoration of electricity. No notice of the applicationwas given to Board. The Civil Judge observed that such an application was notmaintainable. Yet he held that in the interest of justice the connection be restoredon condition that complainant would not use load more than the sanctioned andif in future the complainant was found using excessive load, the Board would be atliberty to disconnect the connection. The reconnection charges were deposited on6.8.1996 and connection was restored on 7.8.1996.

After the electricity connection was restored the complainant filed a complaintin District Forum alleging deficiency in service, as his electric connection remaineddisconnected for about eight days. He also alleged that the owner colluded with theofficers of the Board in getting disconnection of the electricity when there were noarrears. The District Forum allowed the complaint. It awarded Rs. 20,000/- ascomposite compensation and Rs. 1,500/- by way of costs. Further it directed that theChairman of the Board should hold an enquiry and take suitable action againsterring officers by making deductions from their monthly salary. Both the petitionerand complainant-respondent filed appeals before the State Commission. The StateCommission dismissed the appeal of petitioner but allowed that of complainant. Itmade a further direction that Rs. 9,600/- (Rs. 8,400 + Rs.1,000) be refunded to thecomplainant along with 18% interest for the period from the date of deposit till

96


realization. A further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded by way of costs. Against theorder of the State Commission the Board filed a revision petition.

Issue

Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the Board as the electricityconnection of the complainant remained disconnected for about eight days?

Decision

The National Commission was of the view that the case had not been examinedin the proper perspective. There had to be clear finding as to the deficiency inservice on the part of the Electricity Board. There was report of surprise inspectiongiving particular of excessive load and amount to be charged for that, refusal tosign the report, notice to Kuldip Singh- the owner, reply by tenant-complainant,order of the Civil Court to restore the connection, payment of bill amount andpayment of reconnection charges. The Court could not proceed on presumptionthat it is always officers of the department who are at fault. The NationalCommission was of the view that the matter should be examined afresh by theDistrict Forum after giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence ifany and then to arrive at a decision in accordance with law. Accordingly the ordersof the State Commission and the District Forum were set aside and the matter wasremanded back to the District Forum. No order as to costs.

Revision allowed.

Matter remanded to District Forum.

97


Jaipur Vidyut Viteran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v.Ashok Oil Industries

2001 (3) CPR 102(NC)

Facts

The complainant was having a power connection of 60 H.P. for running oilmill. It had deposited Rs.900/- as security in 1974 and Rs. 10,000/- as security later in1989. On 10.3.1989 respondent deposited Rs.75/- for testing its electric meter but itwas not tested. Later it made an application for disconnection of the electricitysupply, which was disconnected on 13.11.1990. Therefore, respondent claimed refundof Rs. 10,900/-. The amount was not refunded rather petitioner raised a bill for Rs.4,644.88/- plus Rs.121.20/- for the month of January 1990. Respondent filed a complaintbefore the District Forum, which was dismissed. Respondent made an appeal to theState Commission, which was also dismissed but the State Commission recordedthe statement of the counsel for the petitioner that as the connection had beendisconnected the security amount together with interest would be refunded to thecomplainant after adjusting the outstanding dues of the opposite party. However,this was not done. The respondent again filed a complaint before the District Forumraising a demand of Rs. 25,800.71/- and after adjusting the security amount for asum of Rs. 14,900.71/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint but quashed thedemand. Petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. The StateCommission strongly disapproved the conduct of the petitioner of harassing therespondent and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.5000/-. Against the order ofthe State Commission the petitioner filed a revision petition before the NationalCommission.

Issue

Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not refundingthe security amount after adjusting the dues?

Decision

The National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission and heldthat there was no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission.Thus, the revision petition was dismissed.

Revision dismissed.

98


Jai Kumar & Anr. v. U.P.S.C.D.R.C. & Ors.

2001 (3) CPR 187 (NC)

Facts

The complainants had taken two separate electric connections for irrigationof their fields. The connections were disconnected, on the ground that the land didnot belong to them as it was allotted to the Gram Panchayat and the complainantswere unauthorized occupants of the land. Further the connection had beendisconnected under the order of the District Magistrate. Two separate complaintswere filed in District Forum alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum directedthe opposite party to restore the electric connection and also awardedcompensation. Opposite party filed an appeal in the State Commission, which in aninterim order, modified the order of the District Forum and directed that thereneed not be reconnection. Complainants filed revision petitions before the NationalCommission.

Issue

The main issue was whether there was deficiency in service on the part of theboard in disconnecting the connection.

Decision

The National Commission rejected the revision petitions on two grounds.Firstly, there was only interim order of the State Commission and secondly both thepetitioners had already approached the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition. Inthe writ petition the complainant had prayed that the disconnection was wrongand the land could not be allotted to the Gram Pancyayat. Therefore, the order ofdisconnection should be set asided and transfer of land be stayed. The NationalCommission held that the Petitioner’s counsel had been unable to show their rightand title to the land. Therefore, the National Commission did not find it proper tointerfere in the interim order of the State Commission and dismissed the revisionpetitions.

Revisions dismissed.

99


Girish Kumar Balubhai Choksi v State of Gujaratthrough Chief Secretary

II (1999) CPJ 52 (NC)

Facts

The complainant was having an industrial connection for running a PowerLoom Factory at Surat from the Gujarat Electricity Board for which he was regularlypaying the bills. He discovered that the bill raised for the period November 1993 toJanuary 1994 for a sum of Rs. 3,555.36/- was excessive. On making enquiries he cameto know that the Board was collecting from him duty @ 60% which was payable bydomestic consumers. He was running an industrial concern and was liable to payduty only @10%. Before lodging the complaint, the complainant approached theBoard to correct the bills. The Board directed him to approach the Collector ofElectricity Duty. The Collector corrected the bills for six months and refunded theexcess amount of duty collected by the Board but refused to correct the bills for theperiod November 1993 to January 1994 as time barred. Aggrieved the complainantlodged a complaint with the District Forum that the Board had recovered illegallyelectricity duty from him from April 1990. According to the complainant, he had topay an excess amount of Rs. 2,471.31 by way of electricity duty. The District Forumdecided in favour of the complainant but the State Commission set aside that orderof the District Forum in appeal. After analyzing the rules, the State Commissioncame to the conclusion that the Board could not in any way give any refund underthe Statutory Scheme. It was merely acting as a collecting agent for and on behalfof the State Government. The remedy available to the complainant for excess billingwas to approach the Collector as laid down in Rule 12. The refund, which wasadmissible under Rule 12 of the Act, was given to the complainant. The complainantwas not given any refund for the period beyond six months. In view of the statutoryrules, the State Commission overruled the decision of the District Forum. Aggrievedby that, the complainant filed revision petition before the National Commission.

Before the National Commission the Board contended that it was a statutorybody discharging statutory functions strictly in accordance with law. It collectsduties from the consumer and pays it to the State Government. It was merely acollecting agent. The Board also contended that the complainant should haveproduced a certificate to the effect that he was using electricity for industrialpurpose for availing of lower rate of duty, which he had failed to do. Even if theconnection was given for industrial purpose but the electricity was being used for

100


some other purpose, the complainant could not have availed lower rate of duty.

Issue

The main issue raised was whether there was deficiency in service on the partof the Electricity Board in refusing to correct the bills for the period November 1993to January 1994 as time barred and whether the decision of the State Commissiondismissing the appeal was as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission said that the question to be decided was, what wasthe remedy for the excess collection of duty by the Board? Rule 12 of the BombayElectricity Duty (Gujarat) Rules, 1986 lays down the procedure and also a period oflimitation for refund of excess collection of duty. It provides that no consumer shallbe entitled to a refund of electricity duty charged by the licensee in excess of theduty leviable under Act unless an application for refund supported by original energybill and receipt of payments was made to the Collector of electricity within sixmonths from the date of payment of such excess duty. It was clear from the rulethat the refund has to be claimed from the Collector and not the licensee and thatthe claim for refund of excess duty paid must be made within the period of sixmonths from the date of payment.

Taking up the argument that the Commission was acting under the ConsumerProtection Act and if there was deficiency in service, the Commission was free toredress any wrong committed to the consumer unfettered by any other Act or Rule.The Commission held that it was unable to uphold that argument. The Commissionhad to act in accordance with law. There was a statutory bar to recover any refundbeyond a period of 6 months. That bar could not be sidetracked by directing refundof excess amount of duty beyond the statutory period of 6 months. This wouldmake mockery of the statutory provision. The deficiency of service complained ofin this case was excess billing. The statutory rules had specifically provided theremedy for excess billing and had laid down the manner and the period of timewithin which the remedy was to be availed of. The complainant had already availedof the statutory remedy and had got a refund for the period of 6 months. Thecomplainant now could not be allowed to override the statutory bar by raising aconsumer dispute. Every statute that imposes a duty or tax contains machinery forrecovery of tax as well as machinery for refund of excess collection of tax and alsothe period of limitation for that purpose. These provisions could not be bypassed byproceeding under the Consumer Protection Act or some other Act. The National

101


Commission referred to the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India,(1997) 5 SCC 536, wherein it was held that refund claim on account of excess paymentof duty will have to be recovered in accordance with the statutory rules. It wasfurther held that a suit or writ for recovery of excess payment would not lie wherethe statute provides a complete mechanism for refund.

The National Commission further held that the price of the goodsmanufactured and sold by the manufacturer normally includes all costs includingelectricity charges and duties. The duty paid by the petitioner would have beenincluded in the price charged for the goods manufactured and sold by him. Theburden of the duty had already been passed on to the consumers. Refund of duty tothe manufacturer under these circumstances would amount to unjust enrichmentof the complainant. According to the majority view in the Mafatlal Industries case(supra), in such a situation no refund of duty could be allowed unless themanufacturer could prove that he had not passed on the burden of the duty to hiscustomers. There was no averment in the complaint that the manufacturer hadborne the burden of excess payment of duty and had not passed it on to his customers.Therefore, he was not entitled to get any refund.

In view of all this, the National Commission upheld the order passed by theState Commission and the revision was dismissed. No order as to costs.


102


M/s Evershine Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan StateElectricity Board & Ors.

II (1999) CPJ 6 (NC)

Facts

M/s Evershine Marbles (Pvt.) Ltd filed a complaint before Rajasthan StateCommission alleging deficiency in service on the part of Rajasthan State ElectricityBoard for not providing the rebate in electricity tariff allowed by the Government ofRajasthan to new industries as well as for substantial expansion of the existingindustry with reference to electric energy consumption. Hearing the complaintthe State Commission decided partly in favour of the complainant directing theElectricity Board to refund the excess amount charged from him from 10.9.1987till the date of filing the complaint and further held that the claim of thecomplainant with respect to the period from 14.7.1984 to 9.9.1987 was clearly barredby limitation and highly belated. Aggrieved, the Board filed an appeal against theorder of the State Commission before the National Commission. The complainantM/s Evershine Marbles (Pvt.) Ltd also filed an appeal against the decision of theState Commission relating to the period of limitation. The main contention ofthe Board was that the rebate was to be allowed in accordance with a directiveissued by Government of Rajasthan in August 1979. The Counsel for the Boardpointed out that in accordance with Clause (4), this rebate could be allowed onlyto those industrial units, which could start production or substantially expandtheir industry within two years of receipt of the letter of intent/industrial licencefrom the Government of India. The period of two years could be relaxed only if thereasons for delay were explained reasonably and were beyond the control of theparty. Since the respondent/complainant did not produce any letter of intent/industrial licence from the Government of India, they were not covered by theprovisions of the said notification and therefore, they were not entitled to anyrebate.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether the complainant M/sEvershine Marbles (Pvt.) Ltd was entitled to rebate in electricity tariff allowed by theGovernment of Rajasthan to new industries as well as for substantial expansion ofthe existing industry with reference to electric energy consumption.

103


Decision

The National Commission held that the Rajasthan State Commission has takena view that the respondent/complainant was a registered industrial unit with theDistrict Industries Centre, Makrana (Nagaur) as a small scale unit from 9.4.1984 and,therefore, the condition of obtaining a letter of intent/industrial licence from theGovernment of India did not apply in the case as it was not mandatory for a smallscale industrial unit to obtain such a letter of intent/industrial licence. That’s whythe State Commission was of the view that the respondent could not be denied thebenefit of rebate as per the directive of the State Government.

The National Commission observed that para 4 of the directive by the StateGovernment was clear on one point that this rebate shall be allowed only to suchindustrial units which have either started or substantially expanded after 1.4.1979and further that their production or expansion should be within two years of thereceipt of the letter of intent/industrial licence from the Government of India. Asfar as the starting date of 1.4.1979 was concerned, the respondent/complainant didfulfill this condition as their unit was registered as a small-scale industrial unitwith the District Industries Officer, Nagaur on 9.4.1984. However, they did not fulfillthe other condition of producing a letter of intent/industrial licence from theGovernment of India. The view of the State Commission was that the conditionrequiring the letter of intent/industrial licence from the Government of India wouldnot apply to the respondent/complainant and they would be eligible for the rebatewithout such letter of intent/industrial licence. The basis for this view of the StateCommission was that, the intent and purpose of giving rebate was to promote theindustrial development of Rajasthan in a swift and quick manner. The NationalCommission did not agree with this interpretation of Clause (4) of the directive ofthe State Commission. The National Commission held that the provision of Clause(4) substantially related to industrial units, which obtained a letter of intent/industrial licence from the Government of India. According to the Commission theintention behind that provision was to promote such industries, which required anindustrial licence from the Government of India because such industries would bein the nature of medium and major industries. The said directive of the StateGovernment did not make a blanket provision for all industrial units. It restrictedthe concession of rebate to the units requiring letter of intent/industrial licencefrom the Government of India because such units have an option to start industryanywhere in the country and not necessarily in Rajasthan. The intention of thedirective was basically to attract these units to Rajasthan by giving them acomparative advantage. Therefore, the National Commission was of the view that

104


order of the State Commission had gone beyond the provision of Clause (4) of thedirective of the State Government. Hence, the National Commission allowed theappeal and the order of the State Commission was quashed. There was no order asto costs.

The order also disposed of cross appeal filed by M/s Evershine Marbles (Pvt.)Ltd., against the decision of the Rajasthan State Commission relating to the periodof limitation.

Appeal allowed.

105


Sandila Metal Wires (P) Ltd. v. Chairman,U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.

II (1998) CPJ 27 (NC)

Facts

The complainant had established an industrial unit in Sandila Industrial Area,Hardoi with an induction furnace for production of special alloy steel castings. Torun the induction furnace, the complainant applied for the electric connection of2350 K.V. upon 33 k.V.A. independent feeder. The electricity load was sanctioned bythe U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) on 15.2.1991. Thereafter, an estimate reportwas prepared amounting to Rs. 7,57,019/- comprising of transmission and meteringcosts for construction of 33 K.V. line (independent feeder) from 132/133/11 K.V. IndustrialArea, S/S Sandila, Hardoi to the premises of the complainant. Based on this estimate,a demand for service connection charges (transmission) of Rs.5, 37,871/- besidessecurity of Rs. 4, 70,000/- in all Rs. 10, 07,871/- was raised by opposite party on 20thAugust 1991. This amount was deposited by the complainant on 5.9.1991. In themeanwhile, opposite party in its letter dated 4.9.1991 called upon the complainantto arrange Rs.10.61 as this additional amount was required to be deposited forconstruction of 33 K.V. Bay at 132 K.V. S/S Sandila (Hardoi). The complainant protestedagainst this demand and immediately wrote letter-dated 6.9.1991. The third oppositeparty examined once again and found that Rs. 1,61,012/- has already been chargedfrom the complainant in the estimate prepared earlier for 33 K.V. M.O.C.B. alongwith cartage, erection and other charges. The complainant was called upon in theletter-dated 6.9.1991 to deposit the rest of the amount for 33 K.V. Bay chargesamounting to Rs. 8,99,588/-. (Bay is a part of installation of the independent feederline.) The complainant felt that his production activity would suffer if the electricitywas not supplied so he deposited the further demand of Rs.8, 99,588/-on 11.9.1991under protest. The complainant entered into an agreement for supply of energy on11.9.1991 and the electric connection was energized on 3.12.1991. The complainantthen filed a complaint before the National Commission alleging that due to the actand conduct of the opposite parties, he suffered great irreparable loss and injury ashe was forced to deposit a huge amount of Rs. 8, 99,588/- under the threat thatunless the said amount was deposited no electric connection would be providedand he was compelled to borrow huge amount from other sources as a result ofwhich he was under the financial constraints and hardship and still unable torecover from liability.

106


Issue

The pivotal issue in this case was whether the opposite parties were legallyauthorized to charge from the complainant the cost of installation of “Bay” knownas Bay Charges.

Decision

The National Commission held that Section 26 of the Electricity Supply Act,1948 Clause VI of Schedule of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was attracted in thecase. Under Clause VI, Sub-clause 3 of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910,it is specifically provided that when any dispute arises as to the cost of any serviceline, the same shall be referred to an Electricity Inspector appointed by the StateGovernment and the same shall be decided by him.

The National Commission held that the dispute between the parties, therefore,requires interpretation of Electricity Laws as well as the order passed by the Boardin exercise of the power conferred under the Electricity Laws and also the jurisdictionconferred on the Electricity Inspector appointed by the State Government to decidethis question. The questions could not be fairly and effectively decided in thesummary proceedings before this Commission.

The Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint on this short groundwithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy and left thecomplainant to pursue its remedy either before the Electrical Inspector appointedby State Government or any other appropriate Forum. The parties were directed tobear their own costs.


107


Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sheshrao

I (1998) CPJ 94 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, Shri Sheshrao was a consumer of electricity supplied by theMaharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). He filed a complaint before the DistrictForum alleging that the service charge of Rs. 5000/- received from him for providingan electricity connection for domestic purposes was in contravention of rules andprovisions of the Indian Electricity Act and should, therefore, be refunded to himwith interest. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the ground that theMSEB could not have fixed these service charges in contravention of Clause 6 of theSchedule of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In appeal by the MSEB, the StateCommission, Maharashtra, upheld the order of the District Forum dismissing theappeal. Aggrieved, the Electricity Board filed a revision petition in the NationalCommission against this order of the State Commission. The contention of theMSEB was that the Board was empowered to prescribe terms and conditions, as itmay deem fit, for supply of electricity to any person other than the licensee inaccordance with Section 49 read with Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.Accordingly, the amount of service line charges was notified in a circular dated22.12.1986 issued by the Board to its various offices for providing guidelines for recoveryof capital cost contribution (non refundable) from the new consumers in suchareas as had no service line or infrastructure adequate enough to meet the need ofthe prospective consumers of electricity within a reasonable period. The Boardcontended that these service charges were prescribed in a manner so as to beequitable and fair to all the prospective consumers in an area rather than burdeningthe first consumer only for the amount spent on providing basic infrastructure.

Issue

The basic issue involved in this case was whether the service charges levied bythe Electricity Board on the complainant for providing him with an electricconnection for domestic purpose was valid and reasonable or not.

Decision

The National Commission on the basis of its decision in Maharashtra StateElectricity Board v. Sheshrao Ajabrao Sherkar, Revision Petition No. 573 of 1994, decidedon 15.5.1995 (NC), held that the reasonableness or otherwise of the cost or price

108


charged for rendering a service is not a matter falling within the purview ofadjudication under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and all that the forums areconcerned with is whether there has been any deficiency in the matter of renderingthe service that has been contracted for. This view of the Commission was based onthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Green Rubber Industries v. State of Bihar,(1990)1 SCC 731 wherein it was ruled that the consumer has either to take electricitysupply on the conditions on which it is offered or to go without it. Hence, this RevisionPetition was allowed, the order of the State Commission as well as the DistrictForum were set aside and the complaint was dismissed. The parties were directedto bear their own costs throughout.

However, the National Commission observed that in case where the pricingand costing of a service involves an element of monopoly or restrictive trade practice,the same could be brought before the appropriate Forum for a decision inaccordance with the relevant law and rules.

Revision allowed.

109


P. Jagadeesan v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

I (1998) CPJ 1 (NC)

Facts

The Revision Petitioner/ Complainant was having a small shop in the premisesadjoining the Dindigul Trichy Road in Dindigul town having electricity connectionfor over ten years. In September 1994 the service line providing electric energy to thepetitioner’s shop was disconnected by the staff of the Electricity Board on the groundthat it was drawn across the road through which a procession of the Chief Ministerwas to pass and it constituted an obstruction to the free movement of the ChiefMinister’s convoy as one of the vehicle in the procession of the Chief Minister wouldnot be able to pass along the road in case the line was allowed to remain in itsexisting state. However, no steps were taken by the Electricity Board to reconnectthe line and restore the electric supply to the petitioner’s shop even after theprocession was over. On a representation, the complainant was informed that therewas an objection from the Highway Authority against the grant of the reconnection.Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking adirection for the Board to reconnect the electricity supply to the premises and alsoclaimed compensation for the period during which the line had remaineddisconnected. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the ElectricityBoard to restore forthwith the electric supply to the petitioner’s premises and alsoto pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant, in addition to cost of Rs.500/-. On appeal by the Electricity Board the State Commission set aside the order ofthe District Forum merely by stating that since the Assistant Engineer, Highways,Dingul raised objection, the District Forum was not right in directing reconnectionof the electric supply. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a revision petition before theNational Commission.

Issue

The main issue raised was whether there was deficiency in service on the partof the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in not restoring the electricity connection afterits disconnection and whether the decision of the State Commission dismissing thecomplaint was as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the reasoning of the State Commission

110


was absolutely untenable. The electric supply line to the petitioner’s premises hadbeen in existence for well over ten years prior to the date of disconnection withoutany objection from any quarter. The disconnection had been made only for meetingthe temporary need of enabling the Chief Minister’s convoy to pass along the roadwithout any obstruction by the said line. The Electricity Board was, therefore,required to restore the supply of electricity to the complainant immediately afterthe temporary need was served. The failure on the part of the Electricity Board toreconnect the electricity supply clearly constituted deficiency in service. If thedepartment of Highways has any objection to the grant of electricity supply to thepremises, such objection should be raised before the appropriate authority inaccordance with the law. The order of the State Commission was, therefore, setaside and the District Forum’s order was restored.

Thus the revision petition was allowed without any cost.


111


Jaidev Agarwal v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr.

II (1997) CPJ 117 (NC)

Facts

The complainant was the consumer of electricity, supplied for domesticpurpose by the respondent, Haryana State Electricity Board. He filed a complaintbefore the District Forum contending that he has been making payment of the billsregularly but despite this, the respondent issued two bills for Rs. 11, 207/- andRs. 737/- pertaining to the meters installed at the premises, which were incorrectand highly exaggerated and despite repeated requests no heed was paid to cancelthe bills. The respondent Board contested the complaint on the ground that thepremises of the complainant was checked by the Vigilance Cell of the respondenton 14.5.1993 and it was found that the meter was moving in the reverse directionand its T.C. seal was found missing while M & T seals were found painted. As regardsthe other meter both TC seals and M & T seals were found painted. Thus it was acase of theft of energy, so penalty of Rs. 11, 207/- and Rs. 737/- was imposed upon thecomplainant. It was also pleaded that the complainant had filed a civil suit claiminga decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from disconnectingthe electricity and the civil suit was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class,Gurgaon. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that thepetitioner had instituted a civil suit at Gurgaon contending therein that he was aconsumer of the electricity and the bills amounting to Rs. 15, 246/-, Rs. 2, 593/- and Rs.1, 817/- were incorrectly prepared. As the dispute regarding imposition of penaltywas already under adjudication in the Civil Court the complaint was notmaintainable. Thereafter, the complainant approached the State Commission,Chandigarh by way of an appeal but without success. The State Commission agreedwith the finding of the District Forum and held that in view of the pendency of thecivil suit in the Civil Court on identical matter the complaint was not maintainable.Aggrieved, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.The only point canvassed by the petitioner before the National Commission wasthat the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of the complaint werenot identical.

Issue

The issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency on the part ofthe Electricity Board in disconnecting the electricity supply to the complainant

112


and whether the observations of the District Forum and the State Commission indismissing the complaint were in accordance with law.

Decision

After pursuing the contents of the complaint as well as the plaint filed beforethe civil court the National Commission held that in para 5 of the plaint, thegrievance of the petitioner was that he had already paid the up to date bill dated10th April 1993 amounting to Rs. 767/- but despite that the respondent was bentupon disconnecting the electricity and as such the respondent may be restrainedfrom doing so. Therein the petitioner had not challenged the correctness of the billsamounting to Rs. 15,546/-, Rs. 2,593/- and Rs. 1,817/- as observed by the District Forumand the State Commission. Even there was no reference to any bill in the plaint.Thus in the opinion of the National Commission the subject matter of the plaintand the complaint was not identical. The District Forum and the State Commissionmisread and misinterpreted the evidence and returned the finding undermisapprehension of facts that the subject matter of the suit and subject matter ofthe complaint was identical. The order passed by the District Forum as well as theState Commission suffered from legal infirmity and could not be sustained in law.The National Commission held that the complaint filed before the District Forumwas maintainable and it should have been decided on merit. As a result, the RevisionPetition was allowed. Order of the State Commission as well as the District Forumwas set aside and the case was remanded to the District Forum for deciding thecomplaint of the petitioner on merit. However, Commission did not make any orderas to cost.


113


C.E.S.C Ltd. v. Smt. Sumita Pal

III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant was a consumer of the electricity supplied bythe Calcutta Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (C.E.S.C. Ltd.) in the commercial premises of M/sApsara (Beauty Parlour) located at 4-H, Panchanantala Road, (1st Floor), Calcutta.The electricity supply at the said premises was disconnected by C.E.S.C. Ltd., on 9thMay 1995. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the ConsumerProtection Act, 1986, against the disconnection of electricity. The C.E.S.C. Ltd. statedthat acting upon a credible information received in the Central Office of the C.E.S.C.Ltd. the officers from the Loss Control Cell undertook a surprise visit to the consumer’spremises and upon inspection found that the consumer was drawing electricitydirectly from the service cutouts thereby bypassing the meter. The Electricity Boardcontended that this was in gross violation of the statutory provisions and conditionsof supply under which the complainant was being supplied electricity by C.E.S.C Ltd.and that the officers of C.E.S.C. Ltd. acting in terms of the power conferred under,inter-alia, the 2nd proviso of Paragraph VI of the Schedule to the Indian ElectricityAct, 1910, disconnected the electric supply at the said premises. The C.E.S.C. Ltd. lodgeda complaint with the officer-in-charge, Lake Police Station, Calcutta against thecomplainant for tampering with the meter, and thereby committing an offenceunder the said Act. The complainant was also informed by a notice dated 9th May1995 about the reasons, which compelled the C.E.S.C Ltd. to disconnect the electricsupply to the said premises. She was informed by letter dated 12-5-95 that theunmetered consumption charges worked out by the C.E.S.C Ltd. were Rs. 57,405/-which she would have to pay along with reconnection charges of Rs. 30/- and tocomply with other statutory formalities for obtaining restoration of electric supply.

The District Forum by the order held that it is well-settled that consumer foracannot entertain any matter for theft investigation and adjudication and it canonly be decided in a separate proceeding and that disconnection of electricity onthe ground of theft was not deficiency in service by the licensee. However, theDistrict Forum ordered that the complainant cannot be asked to wait for a longtime for the decision of the Criminal Court and ordered C.E.S.C. Ltd. to restore thesupply of electricity to the complainant within 3 days on her payment on ad-hocbasis of 30% of unmetered consumption with reconnection fee. Being aggrieved bythe said order the Respondent/Complainant preferred an appeal before the State

114


Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the orderpassed by the District Forum and directed the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to restore the electricitywithin 7 days from the date of the communication of the order. Aggrieved, theC.E.S.C. Ltd. filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issues raised before the National Commission were whether therewas deficiency in service on the part of the C.E.S.C in disconnecting the electricitysupply to the complainant after finding his involvement in theft case and whetherthe order of the State Commission directing the Corporation to restore the supplywas as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that power is conferred upon the C.E.S.C. Ltd.under the provisions of the said Act, particularly Paragraph V of the Schedule theretoto disconnect the electric supply and it does not provide for any notice to be given tothe consumer where during an inspection it was found that the metering equipmenthad been tampered with and the meter was being by-passed in consumption ofelectricity by artificial means. These within the meaning of Section 39 of the saidAct are prima facie evidence of theft. The Commission referred to an earlierjudgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Babu Lal, II (1997) CPJ 132, where the Commissionhas held that where there is tampering with the metering connection by theconsumer it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part ofthe Electricity Board so as to warrant the grant of any relief to the consumer inproceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In M.P. Electricity Board case(supra) JT 1996 (5) SC 443, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 24of the said Act. It was held that when the Board detects that any consumer hadcommitted any malpractice with reference to his use of electric energy includingunauthorized alterations, installations, unauthorized extension and use of devicesto commit theft of electric energy, the Board may without prejudice to other rights,disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon the consumer tomake payment for compensation for the unauthorized use of the electricity. In thiscase, a prima facie conclusion has been reached that the meters were tamperedwith by artificial means, and thus the electric supply could be disconnected withoutnotice. The exercise of the power of disconnection was in accordance with thestatutory powers and could not be construed as any deficiency in service.

The National Commission thus allowed the revision petition. The impugned

115


orders of the District Forum and the State Commission were set aside and thecomplaint was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, theNational Commission held that it would be open to the complainant to approachthe C.E.S.C. Ltd., to comply with the orders making additional demands of theelectricity consumed, to pay reconnection charges and obtain reconnection. Noorder as to costs was made.


116


Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. MEC.Shotblasting Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

II (1997) CPJ 62 (NC)

Facts

M/s. Venus Rubber Industries, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur had anelectric connection at its premises by the petitioner Rajasthan State ElectricityBoard (RSEB). Subsequently the said industrial unit became sick and it was takenover by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. At the time of closure and take-overan amount of Rs. 57, 293.35/- was outstanding as unpaid arrears of electricity charges.The Rajasthan Financial Corporation auctioned the sick industrial unit and it waspurchased by the complainant company at an auction held in March 1990. At thetime of the purchase the electric supply connection of the said undertaking stooddisconnected due to default committed by M/s Venus Rubber Industries. Theagreement executed by the complainant with the Rajasthan Financial Corporationat the time of purchase of the undertaking contained a specific clause under whichthe complainant had undertaken to pay to the Electricity Board all the outstandingdues of electricity charges in respect of the old connection at premises. In addition,at the time of applying to the Electricity Board for grant of reconnection of electricityto the industrial undertaking, the respondent/complainant company, through itsDirector, had given a letter of undertaking to pay the arrears, if any, due to Board inrespect of energy consumption by the earlier consumer. Accordingly, the Boardissued to the complainant a demand for payment of Rs. 57, 293.35/- being the amountdue to it on account of the arrears of electricity charges left unpaid by M/s VenusRubber Industries. On receipt of said demand note, the complainant voluntarilyremitted the aforesaid amount. In view of the said payment, the Board immediatelyrestored the electrical connection to the factory premises of the complainant.

After obtaining reconnection of the electricity, the complainant approachedthe State Commission, Rajasthan with a complaint seeking to recover a sum of Rs.6,29,251.34/- from the Board. It was alleged that there was delay and deficiency inservice on the part of the Board contending that the action of the Board in realizingfrom the complainant the amount of arrears left unpaid by the previous occupant ofthe premises was illegal and wrongful. By delaying the grant of reconnection ofelectricity until payment of the outstanding arrears of electricity the Board had illegallycaused enormous loss to the complainant as the factory remained closed for aconsiderable period due to non-supply of electricity. When electricity was supplied, the

117


complainant was given only 55 H.P. connection which was totally inadequate forits requirement despite having clearly indicated to the Board that its requirementwas for power supply of 100 H.P. The complainant alleged that there wasdiscrimination against him by the Board by insisting that an application shouldbe made by the complainant for a new connection instead of merely restoringthe connection that had previously existed. On the basis of all these avermentsthe complainant claimed total compensation of Rs. 6,29,251.34/-, which includedthe sum of Rs. 57,293.35/- paid by the complainant-company to clear the arrearsleft outstanding and unpaid.

As to the legality of the demand made by Electricity Board, it relied onCondition No.20 (f) of the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of MiscellaneousCharges relating to the supply of electricity which stipulated that “no newconnection shall be given in the premises unless all arrears and dues in respect ofthe old connection in the premises have been cleared and paid by the intendingconsumer”. Further, the demand had been voluntarily complied with by thecomplainant without any demur.

The State Commission took the view that Condition No. 20 (f) on its trueinterpretation could apply only in cases “where the same owner applies for a newconnection in the premises in whose name the old connection stood”. TheCommission further stated that the said condition could not be interpreted to meanthat when a person purchased the premises from the old owner or otherwise, hecould not get a new electricity connection from the Board unless the new ownercleared all the arrears and dues against the old owner in whose favour old electricityconnection stood or disconnected. The State Commission observed that the newowner was not consumer of the RESB with respect to the old connection. The newowner under the general law was not under any obligation to discharge the dues. Onthis the State Commission held that the amount of Rs. 57, 293.35/- was illegally realisedby the opposite party from the complainant, therefore, the complainant was entitledto get a refund of the said amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent with effectfrom 7th February, 1992. All the remaining reliefs claimed by the complainant weredisallowed by the State Commission. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the StateCommission, the Board filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency in serviceon the part of the Electricity Board in realizing from the complainant the amountof arrears left unpaid by the previous occupant of the premises.

118


Decision

The National Commission held that at the outset it was relevant to take noteof the fact that the said amount was paid wholly voluntarily by the complainantcompany on the basis of the written undertaking which the complainant had givento the Electricity Board expressing its willingness to clear the outstanding left unpaidby M/s Venus Rubber Industries. In such circumstances where a party voluntarilyundertook to make such payment for getting the electricity connection andobtained the benefit of the connection after voluntarily making the payment itwas not thereafter open to such party to institute a complaint before the ConsumerForum alleging deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. Further the NationalCommission considered whether the action of the Board in receiving the saidamount from the complainant could be considered to be illegal or unwarranted.

The National Commission held that what condition No.20 (f) stipulated wasthat no person is entitled to get a new electric connection in a premises whereconnection did previously exist and in respect of which arrears of electricity chargesremain outstanding unless such arrears are cleared and paid by intending consumerwho had applied for the reconnection. Such being the effect of condition No.20 (f),the Board was acting perfectly within its rights in insisting on the payment by thecomplainant-company of the arrears left unpaid by M/s Venus Rubber Industries asa condition precedent for the grant of a new electricity connection to thecomplainant –company.

Further the Commission was of opinion that the State Commission had actedwholly without jurisdiction in adjudicating and pronouncing upon the legalityand constitutional validity of Condition No.20 (f), which, was statutory in origin.The Consumer Forums are not vested with the power to adjudicate upon thevalidity of statutory provisions enacted by the legislature or by a subordinatebody empowered by the legislature to make rules, regulations or statutory orders.Such powers vest only in the regular courts of the land and the function of theConsumer Forums is only to decide cases coming up before them by giving effectto the laws (including rules, regulations, orders etc, which are statutory) as theystand. Accordingly, the National Commission held that the State Commission hadacted illegally and without jurisdiction in holding that Condition No. 20 (f) asillegal unless it was read down as meaning only that no new connection in favourof the same consumer shall be given in the premises unless all arrears in respectof the old connection have been cleared. It was therefore, held that the ElectricityBoard had not committed any illegality, there was no deficiency in service in

119


realizing from the petitioner the amount of Rs. 57,293.35 /- and the direction issued bythe State Commission for refund of the said amount to the complainant was illegaland without jurisdiction.

The Revision Petition was, therefore, allowed. The order of the State Commissionwas set aside.


120


Travancore Oxygen Limited v.Kerala State Electricity Board

I (1997) CPJ 17 (NC)

Facts

The complainant, a corporate body engaged in the manufacture of oxygenand allied gases was having electricity supply by the Kerala State Electricity Board(KSEB). The complainant filed a complaint before the National Commission allegingdeficiency in service on the part of the Board. For the past several years there hadbeen irregularity in the supply and fluctuation in the voltage of electricity given tothe petitioner by the opposite party-Board. Due to the low voltage of electricitysupply during the peak load hours the plant had to be switched off to avoid damageto equipment and products. This frequent stoppage of plant every day for 3 to 4hours resulted in production loss. The petitioner communicated with officials atvarious levels in the Board requesting them for rectification of the defects. Theopposite party in their reply in March, 1991 to the complainant’s communicationsof November, 1990 stated that the low voltage in the petitioner’s factory was theresult of drop in EHT Voltage due to system constraints which was the force majeurecondition throughout the State and requested the petitioner to install capacitorsin its installations for maintaining its power factor at or above 0.85 so that KSEBcan correctly assess the works to be done from outside. The Board also mentionedthat steps were being taken by improving the system parameters. The complainantinformed the opposite party in October 1991 that it had already installed the requiredcapacitors, but the problem persisted even after that. The complainant allegedthat there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Board sincethe fluctuation in voltage went beyond the range of 12.5 per cent specified in theagreement. It was further contended that while it continued to incur losses onaccount of low voltage in the supply of electricity, the Board did not make anyreduction in the levy and collection of electricity charge, which amounted to unfairtrade practice. The complainant worked out that it was entitled to receive Rs. 30lakh from the opposite party, Board as compensation on the date of filing thecomplaint i.e. 4.3.93 and also claimed compensation for future loss being sufferedby it. The petitioner also prayed for cost and expenses and requested for direction tothe opposite party to ensure flawless voltage, fluctuation-free supply of electricityto the plant. In their version, the KSEB, inter alia, referred to Clause 1 (b) of the aforesaidagreement between the parties according to which “the frequency and pressure of

121


electric energy at the point of delivery of power to the consumer shall be subject tothe fluctuation that are ordinary, usual and incidental to the generation andtransmission of electrical energy, but such fluctuation shall not except, owing toextraordinary reasons beyond the control of the Board, be more than plus or minusthree per cent on the frequency and plus or minus twelve and a half per cent on thepressure”. Based on this clause, the opposite party Board worked out the permissiblerange of fluctuation in voltage at 467 and 363 volts and even according to thecomplainant’s data there were only three occasions when the voltage went belowthe lower limit of 363 volts and also that the 11 KV voltage recorded at the sub-station. The Board further contended that the petitioner’s plant could operateeven at that voltage.

The Board pointed out that they catered to the needs of more than 30 lakhconsumers in the State and that there was no need for them to indulge in ‘unfairtrade practice’ to extract money or to cause any loss or damage to the petitioner.The Board stated that although they were making every endeavour to maintainthe required voltage level, low voltage was being experienced in some areas due toreasons beyond control and that this phenomenon was not confined to thepetitioner alone but was experienced in different parts of the state. The Boardpleaded that they had not shown any willful negligence in not providing satisfactoryvoltage to the petitioner. In its reply to the version of the opposite party, the petitioner’smain contentions were that the range of permissible voltage fluctuation as peragreement is between 379 and 487 volts. It was also pointed out by the petitioner/complainant that as per the manufacturer’s direction the plant could not beoperated efficiently below 379 volts.

Issue

The main issue raised in the case was whether the fluctuation in voltage inelectricity supply to the complainant beyond the range of 12.5 per cent specified inthe agreement was deficiency in service on the part of Electricity Board.

Decision

The National Commission held that the main dispute between the partiesrevolved round the permissible range of fluctuations. Clause 1 (b) of the agreementspecified the permissible range of fluctuations only in terms of percentage and notin absolute terms. It was the agreement, which was binding on both the parties,and hence the entire dispute about the absolute values of the permissible range offluctuation i.e., whether it should be around 433 volts or 415 volts did not flow from

122


the agreement. Further Clause 2 (a) has referred to the force majeure conditionunder which the opposite party could not be held responsible for any defectivesupply of electricity. There was nothing in the complaint, which pointed that therewas any wilful action on the part of the opposite party-Board resulting in the allegedvoltage fluctuation to the petitioner. It was also not established by the petitionerthat the alleged losses in production were solely due to power constraints.

The National Commission held that in the facts and circumstances of the casethey were unable to deduce any deficiency in the service of the opposite party Board.The complaint was, therefore, dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to seekredressal by way of civil suit. No costs.


123


Swapan Kumar Babu & Anr. v. Suniti Chattaraj & Anr.

1997(1) CPR 96(NC)

Facts

Shri Lakshimi Kant Basu had an electric connection in the domestic categoryat his flat at the ground floor of the premises No.18F Shahnagar Road, Calcutta partof Lakshmi Apartments. He died intestate. Shri Swapan Kumar Babu, brother ofthe deceased and Smt. Sulekha Dutta, sister of the deceased claiming to be onlylegal heirs of the deceased made an application to Calcutta Electric Supply Co. Ltd.(C.E.S.C) for change of the electricity connection in the name of Smt. Sulekha Dutta.While the application was pending Suniti Chattaraj filed a complaint before theDistrict Forum. It was alleged that late Lakshmi Kant Basu was previous Chairmanof National Labour Co-ordination Council and as he was the present Chairman, sothe electric connection be changed in his name. There was no allegation regardingany application been made earlier to C.E.S.C Ltd or if any deficiency in service on thepart of CESC. The District Forum in an interim order dated 24.10.1994 directed theopposite party. CESC to change the connection in the name of the complainant,Shri Suniti Chattaraj, Chairman, NLCC within a fortnight and to report complianceon the fixed date. Shri Suniti Chattaraj made only CESC as a party to the consumerdispute but did not include petitioners as a party respondent. The petitioners madean application before the District Forum to add them as a party to the consumerdispute and the prayer was allowed. As the petitioners did not proceed, the case wasdropped. In pursuance of the interim order of District Forum dated 24.10.994 CESCsubstituted the name of complainant in place of the name of the deceased. Thepetitioners, aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum filed an appeal before theState Commission to set aside those orders dated 24.10.1994 & 23.11.94 and to revokethe substitution made by CESC in pursuance of interim order dated 24.10.94. ThePresident allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 24.10.1994 of the DistrictForum and directed the CESC to process the application filed by the legal heirs of thedeceased consumer in accordance with law. However, the lady member questionedhow an appeal could be filed against an interim order of the District Forum dated24.10.1994 by excluding the subsequent order allowing the complainant to withdrawhis case and dismissed the appeal with costs. Thus, the President and the ladymember differed in their views. The petitioners filed revision petition in the NationalCommission for quashing the order of District Forum dated 24.10.1994 and order ofthe State Commission.

124


Issue

The main issue was whether the District Forum had the jurisdiction to passthe interim order.

Decision

The National Commission held that the order of the District Forum dated 24-10-1994 suffered from defects of jurisdiction and illegality. As per decision of theSupreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartic Dass II (1994) CPJ 7 theconsumer fora has no power or jurisdiction to grant interim relief, it can grant onlyfinal relief. Thus the direction to change the consumer number in the name of thecomplainant was without jurisdiction. The District Forum while dropping the caseon 23.11.1994 should have vacated the interim ex-parte order passed on 24.10.1994 asthat order was not final and could not determine the rights of the parties finally.The District Forum acted against the law and the principles of natural justice inpassing the order dated 24.10.1994, which it had no jurisdiction to pass.

Thus the revision petition was allowed. The order of District Forum dated24.10.1994 was set aside. The order of the State Commission being non-est was heldto be null and void. The CESC was directed to cancel transfer in the name of thecomplainant and maintain status quo as on 23.10.1994. Further, the CESC was directedto consider the pending application for change of electric connection in accordancewith rules. If any application was made by Shri Suniti Chattaraj the same shouldalso be taken into consideration. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Revision allowed.

125


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Smt. Ganga Devi

1997 (1) CPR 20(NC)

Facts

A cow belonging to the complainant died of electrocution on coming in contactwith the electric post maintained by the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB).The complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum that the loss caused to herby the death of the cow should be made good by HSEB, which was responsible forsupply of electricity in the area. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Appealbefore the State Commission was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against theorder of the State Commission, revision was filed in the National Commission.

Issue

The main question to be considered was whether the Board, which wassupplying electricity and maintaining the electric supply lines could be heldresponsible under CPA for the loss caused to the complainant.

Decision

As regards the delay of four days in filing appeal before the State Commission,the National Commission held that the State Commission ought to have condonedthe delay having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the appealshould not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. Therefore, the dismissal ofappeal on the ground of delay was set aside.

However, the National Commission held that the grievance put forward by thecomplainant did not constitute a consumer dispute as defined under the Act becauseit was not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Board in relation toperformance of any service to a consumer of electricity. The District Forum wasclearly in error in allowing the complaint and awarding compensation to thecomplainant. The order of the District Forum was set aside and revision petitionwas dismissed on the ground that the dispute raised by the complainant was notone to be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum. The parties were directed to beartheir own costs.


126


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bachan Singh

III (1996) CPJ 79 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/complainant Bachan Singh, a landowner in Village Balti,Naraingarh applied for an electric connection for his tube-well under the priorityscheme and deposited the required amount for this purpose. After a visit of the siteand the scrutiny of the application by the officials of the Haryana State ElectricityBoard (H.S.E.B) viability report was prepared for the release of connection on the prioritybasis and in compliance the respondent deposited Rs. 3, 500/- on the 6th May 1992.Subsequently, demand notice dated 2nd June 1992 was issued to the respondentadvising him to submit a test report after installing the necessary equipment forsupply of electricity. Accordingly, the respondent completed all the requisiterequirements in this regard involving a sizeable financial investment. Thereafter, theH.S.E.B. issued the supply sanction in his favour and also erected three poles betweenthe transformer and the site of his tube-well. However, on the 5th December 1992 aSub-Divisional Officer of the H.S.E.B. informed the respondent that his aforesaidconnection couldn’t be released as per the latest instructions from the higherauthorities. Aggrieved, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the StateCommission contending that the communication of 5th December 1992 amounts todeficiency in service as it deprived him of electricity connection, which had been dulysanctioned and for obtaining the same he had invested a sizeable amount. The StateCommission, Haryana, after recording the evidence of the respondent as well as of theExecutive Engineer of the Board and after a careful perusal of the relevant documentscame to the conclusion that there was a patent deficiency on the part of the Board inthe matter of supply of electric energy extended out to the respondent. Therefore, hewas entitled to the removal of the said deficiency and compensation for patentnegligence. It was against this order that the H.S.E.B. filed an appeal before the NationalCommission. There were two grounds on which the appeal was preferred -one relatedto the instructions issued by the Chief Engineer to his subordinate SuperintendingEngineers in regard to such connections and the second related to the protest by thevillagers against giving electricity connection to a tube-well from the sametransformer which fed their domestic light system. The operative part of theinstructions on the basis of which the respondent was denied electricity even aftersanction of connection was as follows:

“It is further desired that so far as practicably possible, village distribution

127


transformer should be meant exclusively for village load and future tube-wellconnections should not be fed from these transformers. Steps may be taken inphases to provide additional separate transformers for feeding tube-wells, wherevervillage transformers are presently feeding mixed load”.

Issue

The main issue raised was whether there was any deficiency on the part of theElectricity Board in not providing sanctioned electricity connection to therespondent/complainant and whether the order of the State Commission was inaccordance with the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the instructions were of 1987 whereas theservice connection was sanctioned to the respondent in August 1992 – 5 years afterthe said instructions. Moreover, those instructions were advisory in nature ratherthan statutory directions. These were not issued by the Board but by one of its ChiefEngineers to his Subordinate Superintending Engineers by way of abundant cautionto avoid overloading of such transformers, which fed the domestic light system of thevillage. The State Commission had rightly pointed out that initially the H.S.E.B. couldnot prove or establish that the sanction of the connection to the respondent wouldhave amounted to overloading of this transformer. Rather it was brought on recordin paragraph 8 of the written statement of the H.S.E.B. before the State Commissionthat there was a commercial connection of 5 H.P. for tube-well emanating there fromand another commercial connection for an Attachakki from the same transformer.Therefore, the argument that it was the discretion of the Board to give or not to givea connection under the priority scheme, in view of these instructions, was not a validground and could not be accepted as a justified reason for withdrawing a sanctionissued after a period of 5 years from the date of the instructions.

The alleged letter of protest by the villagers was dated 21.9.92 and the date ofreceipt of the instruction to cancel the connections was 27.10.93. It was, therefore,obvious that the so-called protest did not merit much consideration and was not ajustified ground for canceling the connection sanctioned to the respondent.

For the above reasons, the National Commission did not find any justifiableground to differ from the findings of the State Commission or to interfere with theorder of the State Commission. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no orderas to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

128


Maharashtra State Electricity Board v.M/s. Swastik Industries

III (1996) CPJ 71 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant was the consumer of electricity supplied by theMaharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). On an inspection of electric meter inJanuary, 1985 it was found that K.W. and K.V.A.M.D. were faulty and K.W.H unitrecording was also faulty. The Electricity Board, therefore, decided that theassessment of units consumed should be made on “average basis” for the periodAugust 1984 to December 1984. However, till 5.2.1993 the appellant did not take anyaction on the inspection report of January 1985. It was on 5.2.1993 that the Boardinformed the respondent about this low recording of electricity consumption onhis meter and enclosed a supplementary bill for Rs. 3,17,659/- for the period August1984 to December 1984. The respondent requested for the payment of thesupplementary bill in instalments, which was allowed, and they accordingly paidthe amount due from them in 6 instalments of Rs. 52, 906/- each. However, therespondent/complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission,Maharashtra, stating that they were made to make payment on the threat ofdisconnection of power supply to their factory, which, they could not afford. Thusthe payment made by them was, in a way, under coercion. Further recovery of adues after a long period of 9 years was time barred and that the Board could nottake recourse to Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that too, in such acase as there was no negligence on the part of the respondent to pay the due chargesin time. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant by givinga notice under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act and by threatening thecustomer could not make its claim alive after such a long period and therefore, therecovery made by the appellant from the respondents was illegal. They accordinglydirected the MSEB to pay back the amount of Rs. 3,17,659/- to the respondent withina period of four weeks from the date of the order with interest @ 18% per annumalong with the costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved by that order of the State Commission,the Electricity Board filed an appeal before the National Commission.

Issue

Main issue before the National Commission was whether there was deficiencyin service on the part of Electricity Board in serving supplementary bills after a gap

129


of eight years much beyond the period of limitation under the law of limitation andwhat is the ambit of Section 24(1) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Decision

Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 deals with the discontinuance ofpower supply to a consumer neglecting to pay charges due from him and mattersrelating thereto. The National Commission referred to the order in the case of M/s.Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay & Anr., AIR 1978 Bom.369 wherein the question before the learnedJudges of the Bombay High Court was whether the word “due” used in Section 24 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is to be interpreted in narrower sense viz. as onlyrestricted to the amounts within the period of limitation which could be successfullyclaimed in the suit or given a wider meaning for recovering even such amounts asmay have become time barred. The learned Judges held that the provision in Section24 of the Act has to be properly appreciated in the context of the obligations castand the restrictions placed on the licensee (Electricity Board) under Sections 22,22-A,22-B, 23 and 24 itself. In the light of these statutory provisions, they held, that thereis no warrant to read the word “due” in the narrower sense viz. as only restricted toamounts within the period of limitation or which could be successfully claimed bya suit. In other words, there is no logical basis shown for preferring the narrowerconstruction to the ordinary construction i.e. wider construction. The widermeaning would be more in accordance with the scheme of the statutory provisionsas also with commercial honesty. Further the right to discontinue the supply ofelectricity is without prejudice to the licensee’s right to file a suit to recover theamounts, since by reason of disconnection of the supply the licensee will notnecessarily obtain the amounts due from the consumer. It became necessary,therefore, to protect the licensee’s (read the appellants) right to recover such amountsby ordinary civil action and merely because in such an action the defendant to thesuit i.e., the consumer may have the defence of limitation open to any portion of theclaim would not warrant such considerations being applied to the licensee’s rightof discontinuance of supply for non-payment of the amounts owed to the licence.The provision contained in Section 24 (1) enables the licensee to discontinueelectricity supply to a particular consumer is mainly by way of relieving the licenseeof the obligation on him to be found contained in Section 22 viz., to make supply ofelectricity on application to all consumers within the area of supply.

The National Commission held that the question of limitation raised by therespondents has been very cogently and comprehensively dealt with in the judgment

130


of the Bombay High Court and they were fully in accord with the interpretation ofSection 24 and the meaning of the word “due” given by the learned Judges of theBombay High Court in that case. The facts that the meter of the respondent waschecked in January 1985 and the report made at that time were on record showinglower consumption than the average in respect of the factory of the respondents.The Commission held that no doubt the appellant woke up after a period of 9 yearsto discover this report and made their claim accordingly. That, indeed, did not speakvery well of the efficiency with which the appellants were functioning. However,the inefficiency of the functionaries of the appellants could not and should not bemade a ground to cause a loss to a public utility concern. In any case, raising of a billfor the electricity consumed, howsoever belated, could not be termed as a deficiencyin service. The National Commission was, therefore, of the view that the StateCommission, had erred in not considering the legal aspects of the case particularlywhen the judgment of the Bombay High Court was brought to their notice and inallowing the complaint of the respondents only on the ground that such an oldclaim cannot be made alive by giving a notice or by threatening the consumer ofdisconnection of power supply. The appeal was thus accepted and the order of theState Commission set aside. As the appellants had paid back the money to therespondents in accordance with the direction of the State Commission along withinterest and costs so the respondents were directed to return all the money paid tothem by the appellants in this regard, within a period of 6 weeks from the date ofreceipt of this order. There was no order as to costs.

Appeal accepted.

131


Kamlesh Gaur & Ors. v. D.E.S.U.

III (1996) CPJ 9 (NC)

Facts

The Citizen Protection Forum represented by Mrs. Kamlesh Gaur and othersfiled a complaint against DESU in the National Commission. The complaint wasthat the consumers were being billed at Rs. 2.40 per unit for industrial light whereasthey should have been billed at Rs. 2.00 per unit for loads up to 20 HP and Rs. 2.20 perunit for loads over 20 HP. The complainant No.1 was corresponding with the oppositeparty, D.E.S.U for amalgamating light and power energy meters, but it did not takeany action, therefore, complainant served a notice on the opposite party.Subsequently, the complainant’s light meter was removed and light and powerconsumption was metered through one meter and billed at Rs. 2.00 per unit. Inview of this, complainant No.1 worked out the excess amount charged from 6.10.93to 26.3.94 as Rs. 756/- and claimed refund. However, the other two consumers namedin the complaint did not get their light meter removed and hence paid excessamount. Same was the plight of over 60,000 consumers similarly placed. Thecomplainant contended that the non-amalgamation of the two meters was anunfair trade practice and prayed for discontinuation of the same and for appropriatecompensation to the consumers who were affected by the deficiencies pointed outin the complaint. The opposite party contended that the complaint was vague asonly three complainants were named and rest were unnamed and even the numberof 60,000 complainants was not certain.

Issue

The main issue raised was whether there was deficiency in service on the partof D.E.S.U in not amalgamating two meters even after considerable period andwhether relief can be given to 60,000 consumers as asserted in the complaint.

Decision

The National Commission held that there was deficiency in service on the partof DESU in the specific case of complainant No.1 whose meter was not amalgamatedfor sufficiently long period even after her representation. The opposite party furtherassured that in future they would immediately amalgamate the meters as andwhen any body approaches DESU for such amalgamation and would charge at aflat rate of Rs. 2.00 per unit. As far as the complainant No.1 was concerned, the

132


opposite party admitted that she had been charged excess of Rs.756/-, which wasrequired to be refunded. As for complainants No. 2 & 3 the Counsel for the oppositeparty argued that the submission was vague as it was not clear whether these twocomplainants had at all represented for amalgamation of the meters and whetherthey were at all interested in such an amalgamation. These two complainants hadnot filed even the agreement with the opposite party so as to ascertain their category.However, the opposite party undertook before the Commission that if these twoconsumers also represent for amalgamation the opposite party would ensure theamalgamation and charge at the appropriate tariff rate. It was further pointed outthat though the opposite party had brought out office order for amalgamation ofmeters way back in 1984 for domestic purpose, there were still a number ofconsumers who did not want any amalgamation and want to retain both themeters. Thus, the opposite party had settled the matter in respect of thecomplainant No.1 where the complaint was specific and assured that they will takenecessary action in respect of the other two named complainants as and whenthey approach the opposite party. The complaint did not specify the details of theremaining so-called similarly placed over 60,000 consumers. In the facts andcircumstances of the case the complaint was dismissed. No costs.


133


Kailash Narain Khanna & Anr. v.The U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.

1996(3) CPR 47(NC)

Facts

Shri Kailash Narain Khanna was sole proprietor of M/s. Deepak Electroplaterscarrying on business of Electroplating. For that purpose he had obtained electricconnection from the U.P. State Electricity Board. On 22.3.1988, the meter installed inthe premises of the complainant was replaced by another meter. But the Boardfailed to inspect and test the newly installed meter at the time of installation orthereafter as required by the Regulation 21(iii)(e) of the Regulations. After installationof meter, the complainant was sent bills, which were wholly, arbitrary, whimsicaland highly inflated. Opposite party on the basis of the defective readings of theinstalled meter and in total disregard of complainant’s representation raised ademand of Rs. 67,449.09/-. The complainant filed a writ petition before AllahabadHigh Court. The High Court granted an interim stay on the recovery and directedElectrical Inspector to adjudicate upon the dispute under Section 26(6) of the IndianElectricity Act, 1910. The complainant gave permission in writing to the ElectricalInspector to remove and check the meter. However, the opposite party continued toraise inflated bills on the basis of the defective meter readings. The meter got burnton 7.5.1992. On 6.9.1992 the Board disconnected the electric supply for non-paymentof the arrears of the bills but without serving statutory notice of disconnection.The complainant filed another petition before the High Court. The High Courtdirected the opposite party to decide the representation filed by the complainantwithin one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order andalso granted stay conditionally on complainant’s depositing rupee one lakh. Thecomplainant did not deposit the sum and the representation was not decided. Thecomplainant then filed the complaint in the National Commission allegingdeficiency in service on part of Board and claiming a compensation of Rs. 64.06 lakhtogether with interest and for direction to opposite party to cancel the defectivebills sent and issue fresh bills calculated on the basis of the average meter readingprior to the change of the meter.

Issue

The main issue was whether the failure on the part of the board to inspect andtest the meter at the time of installation or thereafter and to send the complainant

134


bills which were excessive constitute deficiency on the part of the board.

Decision

The National Commission held that the meter was not tested at the time of itsinstallation or there after, therefore, it was reasonable to presume in favour of thecomplainant that the meter was defective especially because it latter got burnt.There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not testingthe meter at the time of the installation or thereafter despite representation madeby the complainant. The dispute was not settled by Electrical Inspector inspite ofthe directions of the High Court for no fault of the complainant. Therefore theCommission directed the Board to cancel the bills sent to complainant from w.e.f.22.3.1988 to 6.9.1992 and issue fresh bills on the basis of the average meter readingsprior to the change of the meter. Further the complainant was directed to pay thebill within one month of the receipt.

However, on the claim of compensation of Rs. 64.06 lakh the NationalCommission held that no proof had been placed on the record in support of thealleged loss suffered by the complainant. The question of loss was required to beproved by oral and/or documentary evidence, which had not been tendered andtherefore the claim was rejected. Besides the cancellation of the previous bills andissue of fresh bills, the opposite party was also directed to reconnect the electricsupply within two weeks of the payment of the revised bills. No order as to cost wasmade.

Ordered accordingly.

135


Real Food Products Ltd. & Ors. v.A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.

II (1996) CPJ 21 (SC)

Facts

In this case dispute arose by virtue of a direction given by the State Governmentof Andhra Pradesh to the A. P. State Electricity Board (APSEB) under Section 78A ofthe Act to introduce a flat rate tariff system for agricultural pump-sets. Thisdirection was first given in 1982 and later revised w.e.f. 1.11.90, 1.1.92 and 1.12.92. Thereasons together with the direction contained in the letter dated 15.12.82 of theState Government to the Board were that most of the small and marginal farmersdepend on ground water based irrigation and have to incur relatively higherexpenditure in lifting water besides being vulnerable to recurring drought resultingin lowering of water table in the wells. Moreover in rural areas maintenance ofmeters and billing to individual farmer based on meter reading involvedadministrative problems leading to loss of revenue, hardship to farmers and highcollection costs. In view of this, the government felt that the power tariff foragricultural pumps required rationalization and a flat rate system based onhorsepower of each pump set would be more appropriate. Therefore the governmentdirected APSEB to revise the electricity tariff for irrigation wells to Rs.50/- per H.P. perannum and that rate shall take effect from 1.11.82.

Thus the APSEB was requested to take immediate necessary action accordingly.Later on variations were made in the flat rate of Rs. 50/- per H.P. per annum fromtime to time. The High Tension (Industrial Consumers) filed writ petitions in theAndhra Pradesh High Court challenging the revision of tariffs effective from 10.6.87and 15.4.89. These writ petitions assailing the upward revision of the Tariffs by theBoard were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved by thatorder, the petitioners filed civil appeals before the Supreme Court under Article 136of the Constitution of India. The petitioners contended that while their class ofconsumers accounted for consumption of 35% of the electrical energy, the class ofagricultural consumers also consumed a like percentage, the former was calledupon to pay 106 paise per unit (plus FCA) while the agricultural consumers wererequired to pay a fixed 5.04 paise per unit. The agricultural sector which was paying12 paise per unit in the year 1971, 23.4 paise per unit in 1976 and were now paying only5.04 paise per unit while the petitioners who were paying 16.1 paise per unit in theyear 1971 were asked to pay 106 paise per unit (plus FCA). The cost of production

136


being 71 paise per unit the whole burden on account of the subsidized supply toagricultural sector was cast on the High Tension consumers. It was urged that thisdiscrimination was arbitrary and irrational and was clearly violative of theconstitutional pledge of equality under Article 14.

Issue

The important issues raised were:

1. What was the nature and effect of the direction given by the StateGovernment under Section 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948?

2. Was the preferential treatment to the agricultural consumers violative ofArticle 14?

Decision

The Supreme Court held that H.T. consumers formed a distinct class separatefrom the L. T. Consumers and the concessional tariffs to the agriculturists did notviolate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the claim of the H.T.Consumers to be classified along with agriculturists was held to be untenable. TheSupreme Court referred to an earlier decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. etc.v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Other, (1991) 3 S.C.C. 299 wherein thisquestion has already been considered and concluded.

In Hindustan Zinc Ltd. etc. (supra), a similar challenge on the ground ofdiscrimination between H.T. consumers, including the power intensive consumers,and other consumers like L.T. consumers and agriculturists was repelled. It washeld that the H.T. consumers form a distinct class separate from the L.T. consumersand that concessional tariffs to the agriculturists does not violate Article 14 of theConstitution of India.

On the question of the nature and effect of the direction given by the StateGovernment under Section 78A of the Act the Supreme Court held that the samehas to be examined in the context of the facts of the present case in regard to thecharging of a flat rate per H.P. for agricultural pump sets. Section 78A uses theexpression “the Board shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy asmay be given to it by the State Government.” The Supreme Court held that the viewexpressed by the State Government on a question of policy was in the nature of adirection to be followed by the Board in the area of the policy to which it related. Inthe context of the function of the Board of fixing the tariffs in accordance withSection 49 read with Section 59 and other provisions of the Act, the Board was to beguided by any such direction of the State Government. Where the direction of the

137


State Government was to fix a concessional tariff for agricultural pump sets at aflat rate per H.P., it did relate to a question of policy, which the Board must follow.However, in indicating the specific rate in a given case, the action of the StateGovernment may be in excess of the power of giving a direction on the question ofpolicy, which the Board, if its conclusion was different, may not be obliged to bebound. But where the Board considered even the rate suggested by the StateGovernment and found it to be acceptable in the discharge of its function of fixingthe tariffs, the ultimate decision of the Board would not be vitiated merely becauseit has accepted the opinion of the State Government even about the specific rate. Insuch a case the Board accepted the suggested rate because that appeared to beappropriate in its own view. If the view expressed by the State Government in itsdirection exceeds the area of policy, the Board may not be bound by it unless it takesthe same view on merits itself.

In the present case, the flat rate per H.P. for the agricultural pump sets indicatedby the State Government appeared to have been found acceptable by the Board asappropriate particularly because it related to the policy of concessional tariff forthe agriculturists as a part of the economic programme. The Supreme Court heldthat there was no material in the case to indicate that the flat rate indicated by theState Government for the agricultural pump sets was so unreasonable that it couldnot have been considered appropriate by the Board.

Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

138


Rajasthan State Electricity Board & anr. v. Ramrikh Vyas

II (1996) CPJ 245 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant Ramrikh Vyas had a connection of electricityat his residence in Jodhpur. The Board sent an electricity consumption bill dated15th December 1990 to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 164.68/-. However, anamount of Rs. 2,364.05/- was further shown in the bill as outstanding arrears for thepast electricity consumption. The complainant requested the office of the Board tofurnish the details and reasons for charging the said amount. However, the oppositeparty did not furnish any information and on 20th December 1990 disconnected hiselectricity connection. Feeling aggrieved by that, the respondent/complainant fileda complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of theElectricity Board. According to the complainant, the electricity meter of thiselectricity connection had never remained stopped and even if it had stopped, theresponsibility to change the meter was on the opposite party, but they remainednegligent in the discharge of their duty. The complainant, therefore prayed thatthe electricity consumption bill with respect to the amount of Rs. 2,364.05/- bequashed and electricity connection to be restored. The complainant further claimedcompensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000.

The Electricity Board stated that the meter in question was out of order, itsglass had been broken and electricity current was not passing into the meter. It hadsent an electricity consumption bill on the basis of past average under condition 19of the General Conditions of Supply in respect of the period during which theelectricity current did not pass into the meter. As the complainant did not depositthe amount of the bill the electricity connection was disconnected.

The District Forum held that the bill had been sent in accordance with theCondition 19 (d) of the General Conditions of Supply and therefore, it was correct andaccordingly it dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant filed an appealbefore the State Commission. Hearing the appeal, the State Commission held thatItem 1 under Condition No. 19 (d) (vii) of the General Conditions of Supply issued bythe Board was repugnant to Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, and thereforeultra vires. Further that the electricity supply line could not be discontinued ordisconnected in relation to a consumer if he neglected to pay any charge for energywithout giving him a notice of not less than seven clear days as per the wording ofSection 24 of the said Act. The State Commission further held that though it was

139


printed on the bill that in case amount is not paid within a week of the last date ofpayment electric connection will be disconnected but such notice was not sufficient.About the bill, it was held that the maximum period of six months was permissibleunder Section 26 (6) of the Act for which electric bill on the average basis could besent, thus the bill for 29 months could not be sent. Accordingly, the Sate Commissionheld that the bill for Rs. 2,346.05/- could not be sent to the complainant and hisconnection could not be disconnected for non-payment of the said amount. For theloss suffered by the complainant on account of disconnection of electricity, theState Commission held that he should be compensated for the same and thecompensation was assessed at Rs.4000/-. Accordingly the State Commission allowedthe appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The Board filed a revisionpetition before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issues involved in this case were whether there was deficiency inservice on the part of the Electricity Board and whether the order of the StateCommission directing the Board for restoration of electricity supply and to paycompensation to the complainant was right and in accordance with the law.

Decision

The National Commission modified the decision of the State Commission. TheCommission held that the contention of the Board was that the glass of the meterof the consumer i.e., the complainant had been broken and electricity current wasnot passing through the meter. Thus, the dispute in the present case did not fallunder Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act and therefore, it could not be referredto the Electrical Inspector. Condition 19 (d) (vii) read with Item No.1 appended theretodeals only with those meters which are burnt/ stopped or ceased to function for anyreason. Hence it was not repugnant to Section 26 (6) of the Act which only dealswith the percentage of defect i.e. whether the meter is correct or not, in other wordswhether the meter is correctly recording the electricity consumed.

Condition No. 19 (d) (vii) provides that in the event of the meter being out oforder i.e. burnt/stopped or ceased to function (except for percentage of defect) forany reason during any month/months shall be assessed by the billing authority orby the Vigilance Checking Officer as the case may be, in the manner that thequantity of electricity supplied during the period in which the meter stopped/burntor cease to function, shall be determined by taking average of the consumptionrecorded during the three months or 12 months, which ever is higher immediatelypreceding the months when the said meter stopped/burnt or cease to function.

140


Thus Item No. 1 appended to condition No. 19 (d) (vii) provided for determination ofconsumption on average basis during the period the meter was out of order. TheDistrict Forum had reproduced the details as given by the opposite parties while arrivingat the amount outstanding and payable by the complainant. The complainant /respondent had not pointed out that the details of Rs. 2,346.05/- as shown outstandingagainst him in the bill dated 15th December, 1990 were not correct.

It was argued by the complainant /respondent that the bills for arrears couldnot be for a period exceeding six months. The National Commission held that theargument has no force. The period of six months has been provided only under section26 (6) of the Act when any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referredto under sub section (1) of the section is correct or not and the meter has been referredto an Electrical Inspector for decision. The National Commission held that there wasno limitation for sending a bill for electricity consumed. The only restriction wasunder section 26 (6) of the Act, which was not applicable to the present case. Hence thebill for arrears sent by the Electricity Board was not liable to be quashed on any ground.

Third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in theelectricity bill which had been sent to the complainant by the Board, it was printed inthe bill that in case the payment of the amount is not made within a week of the lastdate of the payment, electricity connection will be disconnected, and, therefore, therewas no necessity of sending a seven day’s notice as required by section 24 of the Act.

The National Commission observed that the bill was sent to the complainanton 15th December 1990 and on 20th December 1990 the disconnection of theelectricity connection was made, i.e. within less than seven days of the issue of thebill. It was of course, not clear that what was the last date of payment of the bill. Inany case, the Board was not entitled to disconnect the electric connection of thecomplainant on 20th December 1990. Thus, the Board was clearly guilty of deficiencyin service. The complainant has definitely suffered discomfort on account of thedisconnection of the electricity. The National Commission therefore, upheld theaward of Rs. 4000/- to the complainant by the State Commission on account ofwrongful disconnection of the electricity supply.

The National Commission partly accepted the Revision Petition and held thatthe bill for the amount of Rs. 2,364.05/- was payable by the complainant consumerand the revision petitioner Board was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation tothe complainant for wrongful disconnection of supply of electricity. The order ofthe State Commission was modified to the extent indicated above. However, theparties were left to bear their own costs.

Petition partly accepted.

141


Haryana State Electricity Board v Jai Forging &Stampings (P) Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

II (1996) CPJ 148 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent /Complainant, was an industrial concern at Yamuna Nagar,receiving electric supply from the Board under three connections - one connectionA/c No. Y-32 was in lower tension category and other two A/c Nos. A-400 & A-415 werein high-tension category. In September 1991 the meter for low-tension connectionwent out of order. The matter was reported to the Board for replacing the same.But the board did not take any action for replacing the said meter. Thereafter, thecomplainant diverted the electric supply through the meter having A/c No.A-400 tosupply electricity connected with A/c No.Y-32. Consequently the total energy beingconsumed was recorded through A/c No. A-400. On 2nd April 1992 the Vigilance Staffof the Board inspected the premises of the complainant and noticing the aforesaidarrangement booked a case of resale of electricity. It imposed penal charge to thetune of Rs. 99,963/- and disconnected the supply of electricity through A/c No. A-400on the same day. On making representations the supply was restored on 7th April1992 after a provisional deposit of Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant appealed againstthe aforesaid action of the Board to the Superintending Engineer cum AppellateAuthority. The said appeal was allowed on the finding that as all the threeconnections belonged to the one party, it was not a case of resale of electricity and,therefore, the imposed charges on the complainant would not be levied. However,he gave an extraneous direction that all the three connections of the complainantshould be clubbed. In October 1992, in the relevant bill, the Board raised a demand ofRs. 35,879/- as S.O.P plus Rs. 2,709/- and on an enquiry it was conveyed to thecomplainant that the additional amount was towards the difference in tariff ratefor the two connections. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before theHaryana State Commission. The complainant contended that that there wasdeficiency in service by the Board as the levy was wholly illegal because of thecontravention of the procedure for clubbing etc. and that there was no provisionfor levy of charges retrospectively for a decade. With regards to relief, it was claimedthat due to illegal disconnection of electricity in the industrial premises from 2ndApril 1992 to 7th April 1992 a financial loss of Rs. 94,000/- has been suffered, apartfrom humiliation and loss of reputation for which he claimed Rs. 50,000/- asdamages. The additional charge of Rs. 38,000/- towards clubbing charges from

142


September 1983 to April 1992 were sought to be quashed. The State Commissionallowing the complaint held that the unauthorized disconnection of the electricityenergy from 2nd April, 1992 to 7th April, 1992 was wholly unwarranted and theopposite party must bear the consequences thereof and that the Board could notpoint out any specific provision whatsoever including the Sale Circular No.28 of1983, which authorised such retrospective penalties. The State Commission,therefore, held that the retrospective clubbing for ten years was patentlyunauthorized and therefore the levy of the clubbing charges of Rs. 38, 580/- wereliable to be set aside. Feeling aggrieved the Board filed appeal before the NationalCommission.

Issue

The main issue before the National Commission was whether there wasdeficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board in levying chargesretrospectively for a decade and whether the decision of the State Commissiondirecting the Electricity Board to pay the compensation was right in accordancewith the provision of the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that clearly appellant Board has no case so faras levy of penalty on the allegation of resale of energy was concerned in view of theorder passed by the Superintending Engineer-cum-Appellant Authority of the Boardaccording to which it was not a case of resale of energy. The charges on this accountwere not leviable. The Board has not challenged the said order of the SuperintendingEngineer and it has become final. The learned Counsel for the appellant Boardrelied upon the Sale Circular No.28 of 1983 about levying clubbing charges andjustifying disconnection. The National Commission was of opinion that in thatrespect also the Board has no case. As per the order of the Appellate Authority thedirection was to club the three meters prospectively. The Board could not club thethree meters from the date of the circular i.e. retrospectively. Before any action fordisconnection of electricity was to be taken by the Board an advance notice of threemonths should have been issued to the concerned consumer for complying withthe instructions. Admittedly in the present case no such notice was given to thecomplainant.

As noticed, the vigilance staff of the Board inspected the premises of thecomplainant on 2nd April 1992 and noticing arrangement of diversion of electricity,imposed penalty charges for resale of electricity and disconnected the connection

143


on the same day. In such circumstances the disconnection of the electricity supplyto the complainant will have to be held against the instructions issued by the Board.

The National Commission observed that it was clear that the imposition ofclubbing charges retrospectively was bad and the disconnection was also not inline with the instruction issued by the Board and, therefore, the finding of the StateCommission on these points will have to be upheld.

Further the learned counsel for the appellant also disputed the amount ofcompensation awarded by the State Commission to the complainant against theBoard. The Commission said that no ground has been laid before them for reducingthe amount of compensation. In this regard the action of the officers of the Boardwas held to be highly arbitrary. The supply was restored on 7th April 1992 only afterthe complainant had been forced to make a provisional deposit of Rs. 15,000/-. TheNational Commission held that they did not find any ground to interfere with theamount of compensation awarded by the State Commission. Accordingly, the appealwas dismissed with costs which was assessed at Rs. 1,000.

Appeal dismissed.

144


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Tanuj Rashi Poultry Farm

II (1996) CPJ 15 (NC)

Facts

Shri S.K. Gupta, a Non-Resident Indian, set up a poultry farm in village KakarMajra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, involving an investment of about a croreof rupees. He applied for and secured an electric connection in November 1990. Fromthis period up to the month of July, 1991 two electricity meters were burnt but werenot replaced in time though he had applied for it and made the necessary paymentsto the Haryana State Electricity Board (H.S.E.B). His main allegation was that he hadto submit to the illegal demands of the employees of the HSEB that he did becausehis business was of such a nature that it couldn’t operate without electricity evenfor an hour. On the 18th September 1991 Shri S.K. Gupta contacted the Sub-DivisionalOfficer of HSEB with complaint of unsatisfactory supply of electricity to his poultryfarm. On being informed that the connected load was more than the sanctionedload he moved an application for the extension of load. Thereafter, Shri C.D. Sood,the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, threatened the complainant with penalty forunauthorized extension of load unless his illegal financial demands were satisfied.In July, 1992 the electricity meter was burnt followed by the burning of meter againin August-September, 1992 resulting in total disruption of electricity supply to thefarm for 25 days and consequently the loss of 3080 birds. The value of loss wascalculated as Rs. 1.50 lakh. On 10th October 1992 Shri C.D. Sood, visited the poultryfarm and later summoned complainant to his office and threatened him withserious consequences, unless he was given some graft money. As complainant refusedto give any more illegal gratification, he was served with a letter dated 25thNovember 1992 levying a penalty and other charges to the tune of Rs. 12,568/-, whichhe deposited under protest. His application for extension of load was also notaccepted inspite of many attempts made by him. Thereafter, he addressed acomplaint to the Chief Minister of Haryana. Finding that no meaningful action wasbeing taken by the HSEB he filed a complaint before the Haryana State Commissionseeking a relief to the tune of Rs. 5.20 lakh including the loss due to death of 3080birds and also because he had to purchase a generator.

The Haryana State Electricity Board denied all the allegations made by ShriGupta. After hearing the complaint, the Haryana State Commission concludedthat the allegations of the complainant as regards non-replacement of burnt meterfor a period 25 days and death of as many as 3080 birds stood substantiated on the

145


basis of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by both the parties. As regards theallegations of graft etc., the State Commission observed that it was a question ofbelieving word against word in the absence of any concrete or corroborative evidenceand, therefore, allowed the benefit of doubt to Shri Sood, the S.D.O. The StateCommission allowed a relief of Rs. 75,000/- for the loss of birds etc. includingharassment and other business loss. They also held that recovery of Rs. 12,560/- forunauthorized extension of load on the basis of inspection was also not valid, andtherefore, directed that this amount which was paid by Shri Gupta under protestshould be refunded to him. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 87,568/- was directed to bepaid to the complainant as against his claim of Rs. 5,28,500/-. Aggrieved by thatorder of the State Commission, the Haryana Electricity Board filed an appeal beforethe National Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency in serviceon the part of the Electricity Board in not replacing the burnt electricity meterresulting in the total disruption of electricity supply for 25 days and consequentlythe loss of 3080 birds and whether the order of the State Commission directing theBoard to pay compensation was as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the conclusions arrived at by the HaryanaState Commission were based on cogent reasoning and proper appreciation of thefacts. Therefore, there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the StateCommission and hence the appeal was dismissed by the Commission. It was observedby the National Commission that the attitude of Shri Sood in dealing with thecomplaint of Shri Gupta, particularly his action in penalizing him to the extent ofRs. 12,560/- and recovering that amount on pains of disconnection was not as isexpected of a public servant. It would have been appropriate on the part of theHaryana State Electricity Board to make an inquiry into his conduct rather thanwasting public money in this litigation. The National Commission thus upheld theorder of the Haryana State Commission, dismissed the appeal and further directedthat the Haryana State Electricity Board shall pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to therespondent.

Appeal dismissed.

146


Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &Ors. v. M. Abdul Hameed

I (1996) CPJ 312 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant, M.Abdul Hameed was the owner of a housesite. A high-tension electric wire of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) waspassing above his house and causing hindrance to the construction of his house. Heapproached the Electricity Board for its shifting and an order was passed by theBoard on 24th November, 1979 for payment of expenses of Rs. 2,533/- which therespondent /complainant paid on 27th February 1980. But the wire was not shifted.Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forumwith a claim for removal of the high-tension electric wire and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The contention of the Electricity Board was that since there were houseson all sides and they were raising objection to the shifting of the high-tension wire,they could not carry out the work. The District Forum rejected the contention anddirected TNEB to remove the said electric wire and pay compensation ofRs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. Electricity Board preferred anappeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that it is a wellsettled principle of law that without the consent of the owner of the private land,the Electricity Board cannot take its supply lines over his land in any heightwhatsoever from the surface because under the ordinary law, the owner of the siteis the owner of everything up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth. It was,therefore, the duty of the appellant to remove the high-tension electric wire overthe complainant’s land. If the neighbouring owners object to the shifting of the lineover any of their land/buildings, the Board must take the wire by a circuitous routeor by putting the underground cables at public street for which necessary powersare conferred on it under Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Boards Act. Thus theState Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum. Against this order, theElectricity Board filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue raised was whether there was deficiency in service on the partof the TNEB in not shifting the high-tension wire above the house of the complainantinspite of receiving payment towards the same 15 years back and whether thedecision of the District Forum affirmed by the State Commission was in accordancewith the law.

147


Decision

The National Commission held that the Electricity Board has reiterated thepoint that the high tension electric wire passing above the land was not meant forsupply of electricity to the respondent /complainant and that the request made byhim was not in his capacity as a consumer of electricity in relation to the Board butwas one of the enjoyments of his land as owner thereof. There was also force in thepoint made by the petitioner-Board that the said wire has been in existence formore than 40 years and that although the complainant had paid the charges forshifting in 1979, he had kept quiet for over 15 years. The Board averred that theshifting of the line may cause low voltage in the area and expressed their helplessnessin the matter of shifting the overhead wire. However, the Board could have intimatedthe position to the complainant as soon as they found it difficult to shift the wireand should have refunded the charges collected in March 1980. The complainanthas pointed out that the Board has no right to delay the matter after keeping theamount paid by him. Available records did not show that the Board had returnedthe charges to the complainant.

The National Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case directedthe petitioner –Board to refund the shifting charges of Rs. 2,533/- to the complainantwithin a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order with interest @ 12%per annum from April, 1980 till the date of refund. As far as the main question ofshifting of the high-tension line above the site of the complainant was concernedCommission said that the complainant might seek remedy by way of civil suit. Therevision petition was thus disposed of as above. Parties were directed to bear theirrespective costs.

Petition disposed of.

148


Haryana State Electricity Board v Naresh Kumar

I (1996) CPJ 306 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant was proprietor of a reputable businessestablishment in the name and style of Gupta Rice and General Mills. The Mill washaving an electric connection from Haryana State Electricity Board for runningthe same. The cable installed by the Board from the transformer to the meter of thecomplainant was in a state of disrepair and had been sparking at several placesleading to the ignition of the rice husk lying in the Mill, which had been burnt anumber of times. The complaint regarding this was lodged with the Board and on10th September 1993 the complainant contacted Sub Divisional Officer with anurgent prayer to replace the cable or repair the same. He refused to do so unless asum of Rs. 1000/- was paid as illegal consideration. On the complainant’s refusal toaccede to that unreasonable demand, the official got infuriated and threatenedhim with dire consequences. It was further alleged that on 11th February, 1993 atabout 5.30 p.m. Shri R.D. Aggarwal, SDO along with other employees visited the Millof the complainant in his absence and asked the Chowkidar to load 10 bags of rice inthe van of the opposite party on threat of hostile action but the Chowkidar of theMill expressed his inability to meet such a demand and informed the complainantabout the same. The Board on 12th February 1993 disconnected the electric supplyof the complainant without any notice and without disclosing any reason oraffording any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The complainant rushedfor redress to the senior officers but the electric connection was not restored. Thecomplainant alleged that he suffered grave financial loss besides humiliationbecause of the deficiency in service of the Board in illegally disconnecting the electricsupply and not restoring it. The complainant claimed a compensation ofRs. 1,80,000/-. The stand of the Board before the State Commission was that on11.2.93 at 4.00 p.m. the S.D.O. along with the staff visited the premises of the Mill forroutine inspection/checking of the meter equipment installed at the site and theinspection was carried out in the presence of both the representatives of the Mill. Itwas found that Yellow phase P.T. wire joint in CT/PT Chamber was loose and thusthe meter was recording 33% less than the actual consumption. The representativeswere asked to sign the inspection report and meter sealing record, which they refused.It was alleged that the officials of the Board had no option but to disconnect thesupply and to raise a demand of Rs. 73, 837.46 to compensate slow running of the

149


meter in the past. The State Commission also noticed the provisions of Section 20,24 and 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act as well as statutory instruction No.115 ofthe Sales Manual issued by the Board and came to the conclusion that the Board orits officials could not arbitrarily disconnect the electric supply of their consumerswithout any notice to them on the mere alleged basis of one or the other employeeof the complainant refusing to sign some documents. The State Commission granteda compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides directing the restoration of electric supplyand costs of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved by that order, both the parties filed appeal beforethe National Commission.

Issue

The main issue raised in the instant case was whether there was deficiency inservice on the part of the Electricity Board in disconnecting the electric supply tothe respondent / complainant without any prior-notice and whether the order ofthe State Commission was as per the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the main submission of the Counsel forthe Appellant was that the finding of the State Commission that it was extremelydoubtful whether Exhibit R 2 was prepared as alleged and purported to have beendone on behalf of the officials of the Board and further whether the consumer orhis employees Joginder Pal and Devi Dayal had ever refused to sign or attest thesame was not sustainable on the face of the entries in the register of inspectionmaintained by S.D.O. M&P, Bhiwani. There was no merit in the submission. Thestand taken by the Board in its written statement was that the inspection partyhad reached and done the inspection on the 12th February 1993 at 4.00 p.m. butAnnexure R2 and R3 record the inspection on 11.2.93. Exhibit R2 was again dated16.2.93 under the signatures of Shri R.J. Jindal. It was the Board’s case that theInspection Report Exhibit R2 was prepared at the very spot of inspection and therepresentatives of the complainant were asked to sign the Inspection Report andmeter reading record to which they refused. Both Shri Joginder and Devi Dayal gavesworn testimony that at no stage any inspection report had been made or presentedto them and they refused to sign. In cross-examination of both these witnesses, itwas not suggested to them that they had declined to sign the alleged inspectionreport. On these established facts, the inference was irresistible that Exhibits R2and R3 had been prepared subsequently to support and justify the disconnection. Inview of the above facts, the National Commission upheld the finding of the StateCommission that the Board has failed to establish the very foundation upon which

150


they summarily proceeded to take the drastic action of disconnection of thecomplainant’s electric supply without any notice.

Report Exhibit R-2 records that when the accuracy of the meter was checked, itwas found within limits, but the same was running slow by 33%. It was not seriouslycontended that the view taken by the State Commission that such disputes werefully covered by Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, and provisoexpressly laid down a period of not less than seven days notice before disconnection,was not correct. In view of this the National Commission upheld the reasoning andconclusion of the State Commission that the Board was guilty of the deficiency inservice, which it had undertaken to render to the consumer under the IndianElectricity Act and the Electricity Supply Act as also the statutory instructions of itsown Sales Manual by disconnecting the electricity supply without any prior notice.

It was observed that the electric supply of the complainant was disconnectedon 12th February 1993 and was restored only on 6th April 1993 under the orders ofthe State Commission. The State Commission on the basis of the evidence on therecord evaluated that the complainant would have suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/- duringthat period, as the Mill was non-functional. The National Commission found theassessment of the compensation by the State Commission was on sound principlesand fair therefore, the quantification by the State Commission was upheld. TheNational Commission noticed that the Board has withdrawn the notice servedupon the complainant dated 13.9.93 which demanded a payment of Rs. 86,108/-including Rs. 73,877.46 on account of additional charges as per M & P checking reportdated 11.2.93 and the running bill pending from March, 1993 and August, 1993. Theamount of Rs. 55, 000/- had been tendered by cheque in favour of the complainantbefore the State Commission.

In the result, both these appeals failed and thus dismissed leaving the partiesto bear their own costs.

Appeals dismissed

151


R.R. Gopal @ R. Rajagopal v. The Chairman, Tamil NaduElectricity Board

I (1996) CPJ 143 (NC)

Facts

The Appellant was the publisher and editor of the Tamil political weekly“Nakkheeran” which was dedicated to factual reporting of the administrative lapses,corrupt practices, unjust activities, etc. of the Government officials, industrialists,public persons and anti-social elements. The complainant for the purpose of hisbusiness had rented entire upstairs portion of House No.49, Harrington Road, Madras,which had a separate electricity meter in the name of the owner, but electricity billswere paid by the complainant. The complainant was using the said premises asoffice and work place and had installed electronic equipments working on electricalenergy for pre-press processing work. In the complaint, the grievance was that inthe evening of 18.12.1991, the workmen of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (T.N.E.B.)were seen digging the electric cables and doing some technical work on the polesand boxes from where electric connection was laid to the complainant’s premises.After they left, it was found that electricity was disconnected to the building housingthe complainant’s premises and to several other buildings in the surroundings. Inspiteof several telephonic complaints and personal visits on the next day to AssistantEngineer no convincing answer was given and a cable fault was alleged. On 19.12.1991electricity supply to M/s. Dhanam Printers, where the complainant was carrying onprinting and binding works was also disconnected and the same excuse of cablefault was given to the owner of “Dhanam Printers”. The Electricity Board’s officialsrestored the electricity connection to the neighbouring five houses on 24.12.1991 bypulling long overhead cables from the main boards and different houses and to theground floor of the building occupied by the owner on 20.12.1991 by similarly drawinga cable from a distant house. However, the owner was warned that if he lent theelectricity supply to Nakkheeran office upstairs, then the temporary connectionwould be disconnected. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a Writ Petition in the HighCourt of Madras praying for an order directing the Respondent to restore the electricsupply to the complainant and to the said printing press doing his works. Thereafter,electricity supply to the complainant’s premises and to M/s Dhanam Printers wasrestored.

Before the State Commission, the Complainant alleged that it was a cold-blooded victimization motivated by sheer malice, vengeance and oppressive attitude.

152


The whole object of this unjust act was to weaken the complainant, to terrorisehim, to oppress his press freedom, to set stumbling blocks in his professional strides,to torment him, to suppress his publication and to eventually eradicate his weekly.The complainant sought a direction against the opposite parties to payRs. 1,64,810/- to the complainant, Rs. 64,810/- as compensation for the pecuniary lossand rupees one lakh for the pain and suffering of the complainant.

The State Commission referred to the provisions of Section 14 (1) (d) of the Actempowering it to award compensation to the consumer for any loss or injurysuffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. It opined thatnegligence constitute the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guidedupon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man could not do.The State Commission also opined that negligence and intentions are contradictoryterms and in fact negligence is the antithesis of intention and so intention is not anelement of negligence. Since the complainant alleged intentional and maliciouswrongdoing, the majority directed the complainant to seek proper remedy in theproper forum and dismissed the complaint with costs. Aggrieved by that dismissalof complaint by the State Commission, the complainant filed an appeal before theNational Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether the complainant allegingdisconnection of electricity because of cold–blooded victimization motivated bysheer malice, vengeance and oppressive attitude of the respondent, Electricity Boardwas entitled to compensation on these grounds.

Decision

The National Commission held that the significant thing, which was requiredto be highlighted, was the fact that service of any description which is made availableto potential users specifically included within its scope the provision of facilities inconnection with the supply of electrical energy. The supply of electric energy has inexpress terms been included by the Legislature in the definition of service. ThisCommission has considered and come to a firm conclusion in a number of casesthat the statutory bodies like the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and similarlyconstituted bodies under the various Corporation Acts and the corporate bodieslike the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board or other State Electricity Boards render serviceunder Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act and that the sale of electricity is for consideration

153


and the supply of electricity on a continuing basis over a period of time againstpayment, therefore, is hiring of service under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act.

The National Commission has already taken the view in its decision B.N. Viraniv. Consumer Education and Research Society & Ors., First Appeal No. 193 of 1993,Consumer Education & Research Society & Anr. v. The General Manager, WesternRailway & Ors., First Appeal No. 216 of 1993 and Union of India & Anr. v. ConsumerEducation & Research Society & Ors., First Appeal No. 371 of 1993 that the reliefswhich can be granted to a complainant against the opposite parties by theConsumer Forums are only those which are enumerated in Section 14 (1) of the Act.It is significant to note the provision of Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 of Section 14 readsas follows:

“to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumerfor any lose or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the oppositeparty,”

It is the negligence in the performance of deficient service that is thefoundation of the grant of the relief of compensation to a consumer for any loss orinjury suffered by the consumer. Negligence is not an affirmative word; on theother hand it is a negative word. It is the absence of such care, skill, and diligence inrendering the service as is expected of or required of a reasonable man. It is omittingto do something that a reasonable man would do or doing something, which areasonable man would not do. It is want of proper care or attention in rendering theservice judged from the standards of performance by a reasonable man. UnderSection 14 (1)(d), compensation is payable to the consumer for loss or injury sufferedby the consumer due to negligence of the opposite party. If there is no negligence ornegligence is not established, then the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction togrant any compensation. Inability to render service due to reasons beyond thecontrol of the person required to render service would not be deficiency in servicebecause it falls within the well-known exception Force Majeure.

Intentional is doing for a purpose with an ultimate aim. The intentional act isthe natural consequence of something consciously done. The Legislature by usingthe words “deficiency” and “negligence” clearly intended that the remedy forintentional malicious acts are outside the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums underthe Act. What the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only belegitimately ascertained from what it has chosen to enact, either in express wordsor by reasonable and necessary implications. In this case, the complainant said that“it was not negligence, it was not delinquency of duty, it was not ruthlessness in

154


rectifying the cable fault. But it was cold-blooded victimisation motivated by sheermalice, vengeance and oppressive attitude”. These types of complaints are not to beconsidered and decided by the Consumer Forums as the negligence and intentionsare contradictory terms. In fact negligence is the ante-thesis of intention and sointention is not an element of negligence. The reliefs which could be granted underSection 14 (1) (d) are solely dependent on the establishment of the negligence in theperformance of deficiency in service.

The State Commission was thus right in rejecting the complaint. The appealwas dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Appeal dismissed.

155


U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. v.Mona Confectionery Industries

I (1996) CPJ 98 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/complainant was the owner of a unit registered as small-scale industry for manufacture of sweets and toffees, in the District Industry Centre,Dehradun. The complainant had taken a huge amount of loan of Rs. 28,02,000/-from the U.P. State Financial Corporation. He also invested his own money to theextent of Rs. 12,86,000/- to establish the industry and install the machinery. To runthe unit the complainant submitted an application to the Board for 40 H.P. electricityconnection on 17th September, 1986 along with receipt of necessary charges of Rs.25/- in March 1988. The Chief Minister of U.P. also issued necessary orders to theBoard to supply electricity to the complainant unit on priority basis. The Ministerof State for Petroleum, Union of India and the Joint Secretary of the Board alsowrote to give power connection to the unit on priority. The complainant was directedto deposit advance security and line expenses amounting to Rs. 14,176/- that weredeposited by the complainant on 5th October 1989. The complainant was furtherdirected to deposit Rs. 150/- in the account of Electricity Supervisor, which wasdeposited on 23rd September 1988. Despite due compliance of all the directions ofthe Board and its officers, the complainant could not get the electricity connection.Oral prayers were made repeatedly, but no action was taken. Thereafter, a noticedated 28th June 1989 was served upon the Board despite that connection was notgiven to the complainant. Aggrieved by that the sole proprietor Shri Ratish MohanAgarwal filed a complaint in July 1989 before the State Commission allegingdeficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. He contended that for want of powerconnection the production could not be started in the unit, though he had arrangedto install the machinery. Further the complainant was informed by the U.P. StateFinancial Corporation that in case the instalment and interest were not depositedby 31st March 1989, the Corporation would take over the unit. The complainantalleged that he had suffered the loss amounting to Rs. 6,85,072.92 on the followingcounts:

(i) Loss in terms of interest on the loan taken from the Financial Corporationand Loss of net profit.

(ii) The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the oppositeparties to pay an amount of Rs. 30, 000/- to the complainant by 31st August, 1992

156


failing which the said amount was to bear interest at the rate of 16 % per annumfrom 1st September, 1992 till payment. Feeling aggrieved by that order, both theparties filed separate appeals. Appeal No.278/92 filed by the Respondent/ComplainantM/s Mona Confectionery Industries while the Electricity Board filed Appeal No.273/92. The opposite parties prayed for setting aside that order while the complainantprayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per month from 25th October,1988 to 28th August, 1989 on account of damages / loss said to have been suffered byhim.

Issue

The main issue before the National Commission was whether there wasdeficiency on the part of the U. P. Electricity Board in not supplying electricity to thecomplainant and whether the order of the State Commission was in accordancewith the law.

Decision

Before the National Commission the question to be decided in these appealswas whether the B & L form for power load was submitted on 25th October 1988 asclaimed by the complainant or on 1st May 1989 as alleged by the opposite party. Theargument of the complainant was that in the B & L form submitted on 25th October,1988 it was clearly mentioned that 36.5 H.P. load and 3.5 H.P. light load total 40 H.P.was required and that form was duly checked by the Board’s officers. The oppositeparty contention was that the said form was only for lights and fans while dulyfilled form both for power and light was submitted on 1st May 1989. After carefulconsideration of the circumstances of the case the National Commission was ofthe view that the contention of the opposite parties was worthy of acceptance. Asper the facts of the case at page 70 of the paper book (Appeal No. 273/82) there was aundated letter on the letterhead of Mona Confectionery Industries signed by R.M.Agarwal, addressed to Sub-Division Officer, Electricity Distribution Sub-Division,Dehradun, on which it was written that “I have completed the fittings in connectionwith the electricity. The form could not be deposited in Dehradun Electricity Officeand I am presenting in your office the said form for fittings of light and power. Theprayer was made that kindly give connection immediately”. On that letter therewas an endorsement dated 1st May, 1989 by some officer of the Electricity Board tothe effect “forwarded in original the B & L form dated 30th April, 1989 for verificationand report”. On 28th April 1989 the complainant was informed by an officer of theBoard to produce the B & L form necessarily required for the advancement of thedepartmental procedure. The complainant had denied that he had received the

157


letter dated 28th April 1989. However, that letter was having the dispatch numberand it was very doubtful that the Board’s officers had fabricated the letter. Anotherthing noticed by the Commission was that the complainant has not explained atwhat point of time he had submitted the letter, which was at page 70 of the paperbook. It was not his case that he had submitted that letter with the B & L formoriginally submitted by him on 25th October 1988. It was not possible that to commitforgery the Department traced out that letter from the file and then made theendorsement date 1st May 1989. The contractor engaged by the complainant hadsigned that B & L form only on 30th April 1989. The said Contractor, in reply to thedepartment’s letter wrote that the B & L form dated 28th October 1988 was issuedby him after light fittings and after completing the wiring for power and motorconnection he had given the declaration (i.e. B & L form) on 30th April, 1989.

The National Commission held that the complainant appeared to be a veryinfluential person. He obtained a letter from the Minister of State for Petroleumand Natural Gas. It was the complainant’s own case that he had been approachingthe Chief Minister and other senior officers for the electric connection. However, hehad not produced any documentary evidence on the file to show that after thesubmission of the B & L form on 25th October, 1988 he pressed the Board or any of itsofficers to give the electric connection immediately. If the electric connection wasnot given soon after the submission of the B & L form on 28th October, 1988 thecomplainant who appeared to be influential would have raised hue and cry. Hisonly contention was that he had been approaching the officers and orally pressingthem to give him the electric connection after the submission of the said B & L formin October 1988. For the first time he had given a notice in writing to the Departmentvide a letter on 28th June 1989 and soon thereafter the complaint was filed. In thesaid notice also it was not prayed that the department be directed to give him theelectric connection. Only damages had been claimed.

After receipt of the B & L form, the Sub-Division Officer wrote a letter-dated19.6.89 to the Executive Engineers, Electricity Distribution Division, Dehradun. Inthis letter it was mentioned that the B & L form verified by the Junior Engineer wasattached with that letter and an indent for installation of meter be placed with theA.E. (Dehradun). On 28th June 1989 the Assistant Engineer (State) or ExecutiveEngineer wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer (Meter) wherein subject wasmentioned as “M/s Mona Confectionery, Ravi Pokhri regarding installation of meterof 40 H.P. Electricity Connection”. The Assistant Engineer was asked to inform theExecutive Engineer’s office after arranging the instalment for connection of 40 H.P.to Mona Confectionery. As on 24th August 1989 the meter could not be checked for

158


want of connecting supply so it was checked on 28th August 1989.

The notice was given by the complainant on 28th June, 1989. Letter dated 19thJune 1989 already referred to above was dispatched before the issue of thecomplainant’s notice. The National Commission was not prepared to believe thatall these letters were forged or fabricated.

In view of these discussions the Commission held that there had been no delayin giving electric connection to the complainant and the Board and its officerscould not be held guilty of any negligence or deficiency in rendering of service.Consequently, the Appeal No. 273/92 was accepted while Appeal No. 478/92 filed bythe complainant was dismissed. The order passed by the State Commission was setaside. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Appeal No. 273/92 allowed &

Appeal No. 478/92 dismissed.

159


Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil NaduElectricity Board & Ors. v. K.R. Mani

III (1995) CPJ 46 (NC)

Facts

The Complainant was running an industry M/s Omega Grantie having asanctioned load of 40 H.P. He applied for an additional load of 89 H.P. on 27.5.1990 andon demand, deposited a sum of Rs. 12,250/- on 16.8.1990 as earnest money. The firstappellant passed an order on 1.12.1990 sanctioning the additional load of 89 H.P. Thecomplainant subsequently on 25.4.1991 paid a sum of Rs. 6,440/- as estimated cost ofwork. The complainant alleged that to satisfy the conditions of supply he alsoinstalled the machines at huge cost. But the opposite parties deliberately delayedeffecting of the additional load for obvious reasons and ulterior motives. Theopposite parties also disconnected the existing load falsely alleging that anadditional unauthorized load of 24 H.P. was used by him and demanded a sum of Rs.19,900/-. The complainant paid the amount under protest but the opposite partiesfailed to restore the connection. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a suit to declarethe assessment notice as null and void and for mandatory injunction to restore theconnection. The connection was restored only on 7.5.1992. The complainant in hiscomplaint claimed that he suffered a loss of Rs. 6,99,655.50/- due to delay in theconnection of the additional load, which was only connected on 31st July 1992 forwhich the complainant sought compensation. The opposite parties contended thatthe alleged delay was not extraordinary or inordinate and there was no negligenceor culpable conduct on their part. It was further submitted that the complainanthad unauthorisedly utilized the additional load of 24 H.P., which was detected oninspection and the assessment for Rs. 19,900/- was rightly made and demanded.

The State Commission was of the view that delay of nearly 20 months in givingconnection after sanctioning the additional load exhibited deficiency of serviceand negligence of opposite parties and granted a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- besidescosts of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved by order of the State Commission, the Electricity Boardfiled appeal before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was deficiency in serviceon the part of the Electricity Board in delaying the connection of the additionalload to the complainant.

160


Decision

The National Commission held that no evidence was adduced by the appellantson record either before the State Commission or in appeal to establish that thematerials such as poles, conductors, transformer etc. were not available in store orapproval of the P & T Authorities for line crossing was required or if required whenit was applied for and when it was given. The State Commission rightly held thatthe appellants had not produced the necessary records to establish that they weretaking steps without any default and delay in giving the additional load wasunavoidable. The appellants were thus held to be guilty of gross deficiency in serviceand negligence.

As regards the suit filed before the High Court, the National Commission heldthat the High Court of Madras was not called upon to pronounce upon any deficiencyin service. It was a petition for a writ of mandamus calling upon the appellants toperform its statutory duty and the relief of mandamus was granted on 16.4.1992 toprovide the additional load as agreed during the month of July, 1992. The assessmentof the quantum of compensation by the State Commission was held to be fair andreasonable.

The appeal failed and was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

161


Rasi Engineering Works v. Commissioner,Coimbatore Corporation

III (1995) CPJ 15 (NC)

Facts

The Appellant/Complainant started a factory for the manufacture of weighingscales and applied to the opposite party for the supply of electrical energy. Thecomplainant was granted two-service connections one for running a machinery of3 K.V.A. and another for lighting. In 1983 the complainant applied for the grant of anindustrial load of 6 H.P. The opposite party did not sanction the load, as the area inwhich the complainant’s factory was located did not come under its jurisdiction.The matter was referred to the Government for obtaining sanction under Section27 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In the meanwhile the Anti Power Theft Squadon 5.8.1985 inspected service connections of the complainant. It was found that thecomplainant had connected the load of 8 H.P. to 3 K.V.A. connection. In view of theunauthorized connection the opposite party ultimately disconnected the supplyon 7.8.1985 and levied a sum of Rs. 600/- as penalty. The complainant filed a suitbefore the District Court, challenging the threatened disconnection and the penaltyand obtained interim injunction on 7.8.1985. After receipt of the order thereconnection was made by the opposite party.

The matter was referred to the Government for obtaining sanction underSection 27 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The Government of Tamil Nadusanctioned the additional load but it was not granted to the consumer in view ofthe outstanding arrears. The complainant filed a suit in the Court of District Munsiffand obtained an order granting interim mandatory injunction directing theopposite party to give additional power load of 6 H.P., which was energized on17.12.1986.

On 26.3.87 the complainant filed another application for extra load of 8.75 H.P.,complied with all the formalities and deposited the requisite amount under therules. But the additional power was not sanctioned. The opposite party sent a lettersaying that the said application would be considered only on the disposal of suitbefore the District Court or upon the withdrawal of the said suit. The complainantfiled writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing theopposite party to give the supply since the application for new connection was in noway connected to civil suit. The complainant also moved an application for grantof interim relief, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the High Court. An

162


appeal was preferred by the complainant to the Division Bench, which held that thequestion of disposal/ withdrawal of the case was not a matter connected with therequest of appellant. Hence the earlier order was quashed.

The complainant made yet another application for additional supply of energyof 39.5 H.P. on 8.7.1988 with a payment of Rs. 200/-. According to the complainant theopposite party had granted installation licence for total capacity of 16 H.P. and 39H.P., yet the power supply had been refused on untenable grounds. The complainantfiled a complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency on the part ofthe opposite party and prayed for direction to the opposite party for immediatenew connections for power supply of 8.75 H.P. and 39.5 H.P. to his unit and also prayedfor a compensation of Rs. 6,08,000/- under several heads.

The State Commission in its order directed the opposite party to payRs. 50,000/- as compensation for failure to give additional load for the period till thefiling of the complaint and a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the periodfrom the date of the complaint till the above two additional loads were suppliedand also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the complainant. Against the order ofthe State Commission the appeal and cross appeals were filed before the NationalCommission.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission was whether therewas deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board in refusing the power supplyinspite of granting installation licence to the complainant.

Decision

The National Commission held that so far as the claims arising out of thealleged deficiency in service due to the failure on the part of the opposite party ingranting the load of 6 H.P. was concerned, the State Commission had rightly heldthat the claim for compensation was stale one and hopelessly time barred. Theconnection had been given on 17th December 1986 when the cause of action fordamages arose and the complaint should have been filed within three years. Thecomplaint was filed only on 18th June 1992 and thus the complaint on that basisfails.

The main submission of the Counsel for the opposite party was that thecomplainant had already moved the High Court for not getting new connectionand the Hon’ble High Court had directed the complainant to approach theGovernment for getting the appropriate orders. In the absence of specific orders

163


passed by the Government, the complainant was not entitled to a new connection.Therefore, any consequential alleged damages could not be agitated before theRedressal Forums. The National Commission held that there was merit in thesubmission. There was a clear finding of fact inter-se parties that the factory of thecomplainant was located outside the jurisdiction of the opposite party. This questioncould not be investigated once again in the Consumer Forum for coming to adifferent conclusion. The finding of fact that “that the premises of the appellantwas lying outside the area of the Municipal Electrical Undertaking” in the writjurisdiction was binding on the parties.

The State Commission did not correctly appreciate the controversy in the writpetition and formed an erroneous opinion that the later part of the order of theHigh Court was Obiter Dicta. The relief claimed by the complainant in the interimapplication in the writ petition was for a direction to opposite party to give additionalload of 8.75 HP to the service connection on the payment of necessary charges pendingthe writ petition. This relief was dependent on the finding whether the factory ofthe complainant was lying within or outside the area of the opposite party. Afterthe High Court came to the conclusion that the factory of the complainant waslying outside the area, no direction could be issued or was issued for grant ofadditional load of 8.75 H.P. to the complainant. The grant of interim relief to thecomplainant was refused as not granted after quashing the impugned order of13.11.1987. The High Court left it to the complainant to approach the Government forthe additional load. The opposite party was to act according to the decision of theGovernment. The complainant has not approached the Government for sanction.In the absence of the sanction of the Government, it could not be said that therewas any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

As a result F.A. No. 291 of 1993 was allowed and the impugned order of the StateCommission dated 9.6.1993 was set aside and the complaint dismissed. ConsequentlyF.A. No. 284 was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Ordered accordingly

164


Genetic Industrial Gases (P) Ltd. v. The U.P.State Electricity Board & Ors.

II (1995) CPJ 176 (NC)

Facts

The Complainant, M/s Genetic Industrial Gas Pvt. Ltd. was allotted a plot to workon a project. It applied for electric connection to U.P. State Electricity Board. U.P.Finance Corporation, which had advanced a loan the company, also addressed lettersto the Board to sanction power load of 97 H.P. in favour of the Company. By March1990, the construction of the factory building and installation of plant and machinerywas completed, but the electricity connection was not granted. In the absence ofpower connection the company had to depend on diesel generator set involvingminimum expenditure of Rs. 4,000/- on maintenance besides affecting the productionschedule. In December 1990 the company came to know that the estimate report hasbeen prepared charging a sum of Rs. 3,891/- to the company and the balance amountwas to be borne by the board. The company accordingly sent a Demand Draft of Rs.3,891/-. However this D.D. was returned to the company with letter stating that theestimate has not been sanctioned and no demand note has been sent to the companyto deposit the amount. The company wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer,Moradabad for early preparation of estimate and release of power connectionimmediately. Executive Engineer sent a letter dated January 16, 1992 with a copy ofrevised estimate and directed the company to deposit Rs. 14,550/- as security chargesand Rs. 38,150/- as S.C charges on or before February 15, 1992. Accordingly the amountwas paid by the company on January 23, 1992. Thereafter, the Executive Engineerinformed Sub-Divisional Office, Gajraula to take necessary action about supply ofelectricity but no action was initiated. Aggrieved complainant filed a complaint beforethe National Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the ElectricityBoard, that inspite of the company fulfilling all the obligations and parting with a sumof Rs. 52,700/- as early as on January 31,1992, the board did not release the electric connectionto the factory. Meanwhile the connections had been released to four other units whichwere not even set up in February 1990 whereas company’s power connection wassanctioned on February 21, 1990 but the connection was not released. The companyprayed to the National Commission that direction be issued to the Board to release theconnection and claimed Rs. 88,71,407/- as compensation towards the loss suffered by thecompany due to inaction on the part of opposite parties and interest on Rs. 52,700/- @ of24% from January 23, 1992, the date on which the amount was deposited.

165


The opposite party contended that the complaint was false, vexatious and frivolousas the company had run only for six days production wise in the last four years fromwhich it appeared that it was not in running condition. The complaint was filed onlyto make a case before U.P. Financial Corporation from where the company had takenloan. The opposite party was not in a position to give power connection as theenergisation of the newly constructed 33/11/KV Sub-station of Industrial Estate, Gajraulawas not possible due to non-availability of the MVA Transformer. Understandinggenuine problem of the board the complainant moved the board to supply energythrough rural feeder. The change of source of power supply delayed the completionof formalities. The total cost was estimated as Rs.2,33,580/- out of which the petitionerwas required to pay Rs.1,62,011/-. On knowing that sub-station at Industrial Estatewould be completed soon, the petitioner insisted for supply from the newly constructedsub-station. The complainant was favoured by the Board in preparing the estimatein advance before the sub-station was energized to avoid any delay. However it wasfound that the complainant had not installed L.T. Switching System for taking supplyas required by Rule 50 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Complainant even did notcomply with the reminders sent to install switching system so that connection couldbe released. In view of complaint, connection was released on November 11, 1993 butcompany’s representative refused to sign the report. Another letter was sent onNovember 12, 1993 to install switching system but no action was taken. Thuscomplainant himself was responsible for delaying the release of electric supply. Thepower connection was disconnected on June 13, 1994 as complainant did not depositthe outstanding electricity charges of Rs.1,98,428/- plus late payment charges.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether there was any deficiency inservice on part of the board in not supplying electricity.

Decision

The National Commission was of the view that delay in the supply of power tothe complainant’s unit was occasioned due to the fact that the sub-station at theIndustrial Estate, Gajraula was under construction. When the construction wascompleted the transformer was not available. When ultimately the sub-stationwas energized it was found that the complainant had not installed the LT SwitchingSystem. Consequently, the delay was mainly on the part of the complainant. TheNational Commission thus held that there was no deficiency on part of the ElectricityBoard. The Commission dismissed the complaint with cost assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.


166


M.P. Electricity Board v Baboo Lal

II (1995) CPJ 132 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent /Complainant Baboo Lal was a consumer of electricity suppliedby M.P. Electricity Board for running his factory. When the audit party of theElectricity Board conducted a surprise inspection of his premises, it was found thatthe meter in his factory had been tampered with by reversing it on one side with theresult that the meter was recording energy in forward direction on two phases andin the reverse direction on one phase thereby bringing about the overall consequencethat the meter was recording only 1/3 of the total consumption. On detection of thisillegal tampering with the meter connection, the audit party prepared a ‘Panchnama’on the spot on January 9,1990 and raised the impugned bill of Rs. 9,787.90/- for theperiod April, 1989 to February, 1990. Aggrieved by that, the respondent/complainantfiled a complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on thepart of the Electricity Board. The State Commission allowed the complaint anddirected the Board to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant,together with a sum of Rs. 500/- by the way of cost and granted a declaration thatthe Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board is not entitled to recover any amount fromthe complainant on the basis that the meter was defective unless the Board refersthe meter to the Electrical Inspector and gets it decided through him. Aggrieved bythat order of the State Commission, the M.P. Electricity Board filed an appeal beforethe National Commission.

Issue

The main issue involved in the case was whether the case of defective meterrequired reference to the Electrical Inspector as per the direction of the StateCommission.

Decision

The National Commission held that the State Commission has erroneouslyproceeded on the basis that the Electricity Board had issued the bill in question tothe respondent /complainant on the basis that the meter in the complainant’spremises was defective and did not record correctly the actual consumption ofenergy in the complainant’s factory. In the present case the audit party of theElectricity Board had conducted a surprise inspection of the consumer premises

167


and found that the meter in the complainant’s factory had been tampered withreversing it on one side with the result that the meter was recording energy inforward direction in two phases and in the reverse direction in one phase therebyrecording only 1/3 of the total consumption. On detection of this illegal tamperingwith the meter connection, the audit party prepared a ‘Panchnama’ on the spot onJanuary 9,1990 and raised the impugned bill for Rs. 9,787.90/- for the period April,1989 to February, 1990 and it was this bill that was served on the complainant witha demand for payment.

The National Commission further held that Section 50 of the Indian ElectricityAct vests the Electricity Board with the power to take such action in the event ofillegal tempering of meter connection and Section 23 of the said Act authorizessuch billing. Thus this was not a case where there was any inherent defect in themeter so as to require the matter being referred to the Electrical Inspector beforeserving a bill and making a demand for its payment as has been wrongly assumedby the State Commission. The records clearly proved that there was temperingwith the meter connection by the consumer, it could not be said that there was any‘deficiency’ in service on the part of the Electricity Board so as to warrant the grantof any relief to the consumer in proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. Asalready pointed out the order of the State Commission was wholly on the wrongbasis as this was not a case of the meter being suspected to be defective.

The order of the State Commission granting the reliefs to the respondent washeld to be wholly without jurisdiction and thereby set aside. Thus the NationalCommission allowed the appeal dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.

Petition allowed.

168


P.J. Thomas v. Kerala State Electricity Board

II (1995) CPJ 56 (NC)

Facts

The appellant/complainant was the proprietor of St. George FurnitureIndustries, which was registered as S.S.I unit. After the completion of the factorybuilding and the erection of machineries, the complainant approached the KeralaState Electricity Board (KSEB) for necessary power supply. Initially he applied for thepower connection under the General scheme for 25 HP and power allocation wasmade on 16.8.1985. Under the conditions of supply of electrical energy, registrationfor service connection was to be made within two months of power allocation,failing which the allocation would automatically stand cancelled. The complainantdid not register for service connection and the power allocation made in the favourof the complainant stood cancelled. Thereafter, the complainant applied under thePriority Scheme for 35 HP power connection on 2nd August, 1986. Under the priorityscheme the complainant was required to deposit Rs. 36,000/-. As the complainantwas in financial difficulties, he applied to the Minister for payment of the amountin instalments, which was allowed. The complainant executed a bond for paymentof Rs. 36,000/- on 19th December 1987 when he remitted the first instalment. Thecomplainant obtained the licence from the Panchayat Authorities for running thefactory on 23rd November 1987. On 21st January 1988 the complainant revised hisrequirement and made an application to the respondent for supply of 18 HP powerand not 35 HP as already demanded. On 2nd March 1988, 18 H.P. power connectionwas given to the complainant. After the complainant had paid the last instalmenthe was given the additional power connection of 17 H.P. from 8th July 1989 after thetransformer was installed at the premises of the complainant.

The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission allegingdeficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board. The State Commissiondismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed appealbefore the National Commission. The allegation of the complainant was that evenafter he had paid the first instalment, the Opposite Party, Electricity Board did nottake even the preliminary steps to provide electricity connection to him and thedelay on the part of Opposite Party resulted in heavy loss to him and he had to payinterest for the loan amount taken from the State bank of Travancore and theKerala Financial Corporation. The Opposite party pleaded that there had been noavoidable delay in giving power connection of 35 HP to the complainant, as after

169


paying the last instalment, the complainant was required to install transformer.After he did so the connection was given to him. The complainant did not complywith the conditions of supply. The main argument of the appellant was that as perthe feasibility report of 19th September 1986, 35 HP power could have been givenfrom the existing 63 KVA transformer at Odanthode and this fact was suppressedfrom him.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission was whether therewas delay by KSEB in supplying electricity to the complainant leading to deficiencyon their part.

Decision

The National Commission held that all the documents produced by both theparties had been fully considered by the State Commission and it had held thatthere was no negligence, delay or indifferent attitude on the part of the OppositeParty in giving connection to the complainant. After going through the record andafter considering the arguments of both the sides, the National Commission didnot find any infirmity in the said finding.

The National Commission did not find any force in the appeal and dismissedthe same. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties were directed tobear their own costs.

Appeal dismissed.

170


Maharashtra State Electricity Board v.Sheshrao Ajabrao Sherkar

1995 (2) CPR 106 (NC)

Facts

The complainant applied for electricity connection for domestic purposes toAssistant Engineer, Anjangaon, MSEB. The application was processed and a demandfor Rs.1,350/- was raised which included Rs.250/- towards service connection charges,Rs.100/- as security deposit and Rs.1000/- towards service line charges. The amountwas deposited on 6.11.1989 and the electricity connection was energized on 6.1.1990.The rural rectification scheme was sanctioned and implemented for Anjangaonand other rural areas under Achalpur Division after March, 1990 according to whichservice line charges were not to be recovered after March, 1990 from prospectiveconsumers where Rural Electrification Scheme has been brought into force. Thecomplainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of Rs. 1,000/-towards the service line charges with interest. The complaint was allowed andMSEB was directed to refund Rs. 1,000/- with interest. The appeal in the StateCommission against the order of District Forum was dismissed. The StateCommission upheld the order of the District Forum. Against the order of the StateCommission, MSEB filed revision petition in the National Commission.

Issue

Was the complainant entitled to refund of service line charges and whetherthere was any deficiency in service on part of MSEB?

Decision

The National Commission held that the amount of service line charges weredetermined according to the circular issued by MSEB providing guidelines forrecovery of capital cost contribution (non-refundable) from new consumers in thearea where there was no service line or infrastructure sufficient to meet the needof the prospective consumers of electricity within the reasonable period. Section 49read with Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 authorises MSEB to supplyelectricity to the person other than the licensee on such terms and conditions as itmay deem fit. The MSEB was thus empowered to frame conditions for supply ofelectricity which included not only the power to recover the cost of electricity butalso charges of service interest, penalty etc. The demand for the capital cost

171


contribution (non-refundable) was framed in exercise of powers vested in MSEBunder the Conditions of Supply made under Section 49 read with Section 79 of thesaid Act. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Green Rubber Industries v.State of Bihar (1990) 1 SCC 731 the consumer has either to take supply on theconditions on which it is offered or to go without it. The Commission, re-affirmedits earlier view that the reasonableness or otherwise of the cost or price charged forservice is not a matter falling within the purview of the adjudication under theConsumer Protection Act and all that forums are concerned with is whether therehas been any deficiency in the matter of rendering service that has been contractedfor. The National Commission held that in the case there was no allegation ofdeficiency in service. The District Forum and the State Commission acted withoutjurisdiction in allowing refund of amount.

Thus, the revision petition was allowed. The orders of the State Commissionand District Forum were set aside. The parties were directed to bear their own coststhroughout.

Revision allowed.

172


Alacrity Foundations (Pvt.) Ltd. v The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

I (1995) CPJ 237 (NC)

Facts

The Appellant/ Complainant, Alacrity Foundations Pvt. Ltd was a companyengaged in the construction of residential and non-residential apartments inMadras. It was dealing with the opposite party for seeking electricity connection forthe construction purposes. The complainant made an application for electricconnection on 3.4.1990 for a complex known as ‘Anandra’, but the service connectionwas effected only on 26.9.1991. In order to avoid delay the complainant suppliedmaterials worth Rs. 55, 854/- free of cost and offered a space within the complex freeof cost for putting up the distribution transformer. Despite all the facilities offeredby the complainant, the opposite party took one year and five months to give theelectricity connection. Aggrieved by that the complainant filed a complaint beforethe State Commission contending that on account of this delay he has been put tomuch loss as the complex was ready for occupation in January, 1991 but for electricityconnection, it could not be occupied before September, 1991 and as a result thecomplainant has suffered loss amounting to Rs. 9, 69,354/- which included the costof material supplied by the complainant. Thus the grievance of the complainantwas that the opposite party has inordinately delayed giving of connection to theapartments constructed by the complainant. The Electricity Board contended thatall efforts were sincerely made to effect the supply as early as possible and there hasbeen no deficiency of service resulting in any loss. The State Commission held thatthere has been inordinate and avoidable delay of more than 10 months in the supplyof electricity and this would amount to deficiency in service. It was further heldthat advance supply for the load of 100 KW was affected in addition to the temporarysupply for construction purposes of a load of 45 KW and this supply must have beenavailable to the complainant and apartments owners and it could not therefore besaid that the complainant owners were unable to occupy the premises for want ofelectricity energy. The State Commission, therefore, refused to grant anycompensation on the ground that the apartments could not be occupied for wantof electric connection. The State Commission, however, held that the complainantwas entitled to compensation for mental pain and agony as it had to wait nearlyfor one year and 5 months to get permanent connection and thus a compensationof Rs. 10,000/- was considered sufficient by the State Commission to meet the ends

173


of justice. Aggrieved by that order of the State Commission both the parties filedappeals before the National Commission.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission was whether therewas deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board as there was delay insupplying electricity to the complainant as per the terms and conditions betweenthem.

Decision

The National Commission said that the contention of the complainant wasthat its requirement was of 218.52 KW while only 10 KW supply was given on 13thMarch 1991 in addition to the temporary supply. It was also pointed out that theState Commission fell into error while holding that the load of 100 KW was suppliedin March, 1991 in addition to the temporary supply of 45 KW for the constructionpurposes when it was an admitted fact that in March, 1991 a load of 10 KW wassupplied in addition to the temporary supply for construction purposes. The NationalCommission agreed that the State Commission has fallen into some error but wasof the opinion that there was nothing on the file to show that on account of thealleged delay in supply of electricity the complainant had suffered any loss. As it wasclear from the counter filed by the opposite party, residential flats had already beensold and the owners themselves had applied for electricity connection. There wasalso no evidence to show that exactly when the commercial complex was completedand that any allotted purchaser of the space in the commercial complex refused tooccupy that space for want of electricity. It has also not been shown that thetemporary electricity supply, which had already been given, was insufficient for useof occupants in the commercial complex.

After going through the various dates given in the order of the StateCommission about the various works carried out by the opposite party, theCommission found that though there had been some delay at one or two stages ofthe work it could not be said that there was inordinate delay.

In the light of above observations, the National Commission did not find anyforce in either of the appeals and confirmed the order passed by the State Commissionand dismissed the appeals. There was no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

174


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Laxman Singh

I (1995) CPJ 234 (NC)

Facts

The complainant/respondent colluded with junior engineer of the Board andillegally obtained power connection in June 1991. For this junior engineer received aconsideration of Rs. 2,000/- for giving power connection but no receipt was given tothe respondent. No meter was installed on the ground that power meters were inshort supply. Power was supplied to the respondent on the basis of Rs. 100/- permonth representing the average consumption. In July 1991, SDO visited the site anddemanded Rs. 5,000/-. On refusal to pay, the power connection was disconnected. Acomplaint was made before District Forum, which directed restoration of electricconnection. On appeal the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forumholding that power connection had been duly released by the Junior Engineer onpayment of installation charges. Against the order of the State Commission Boardfiled a revision petition in the National Commission.

Issue

Whether the connection of respondent was duly sanctioned and authorizedand the disconnection constituted deficiency on the part of State Electricity Board.Can the employee be deemed to be acting on behalf of an organization or institutionwhen the employee acted unlawfully and illegally and can the service by him bedeemed to be deficient service rendered by the concerned organization.

Decision

The National Commission held that the Respondent was due in his turn forpower connection and it was unfairly and unjustifiably denied to him. No doubtthe respondent was in need of power connection and he obtained the same, bygiving illegal gratification to the Junior Engineer for which the engineer wassubsequently suspended from service and was facing departmental enquiry. Theconnection which was subsequently disconnected by the SDO was an unauthorizedand wrongfully given connection. A priori non-provision of the service to which apotential consumer may not be eligible at a particular point of time would notconstitute deficiency in service. The National Commission thus held that StateCommission was in error when it held that the power connection had been dulyreleased by the Junior Engineer. The respondent had managed to obtain the

175


connection by dubious means and therefore subsequent disconnection was fullyjustified and could not be deemed to constitute deficiency in service on the part ofHSEB. Thus, the revision petition was allowed and the orders of the State Commissionand the District Forum were set aside. There was no order as to costs.

Revision Petition allowed

176


Kanchenjunga Chemicals Ltd. vU.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.

I (1995) CPJ 138 (NC)

Facts

The complainant was a small-scale manufacturer of chemicals at Ghaziabad.His industry required continuous power supply so he entered into an agreementwith U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) on 6th April 1983 and power connectionwas given on 31st May 1984. According to the complainant, being a continuousprocess industry, it was exempt from power cuts altogether for a period of five yearsi.e. till 31st May 1989 in accordance with the policy for power supply to such industryin vogue at that time. The complainant filed a complaint before the NationalCommission alleging that he has been subjected to,

(i) Power cuts contrary to the commitment that this industry would be freefrom power cuts altogether for a period of the five years,

(ii) Unauthorized disconnection from time to time,

(iii) To pay bills for power during the period the power supply remaineddisconnected.

Therefore, the opposite party-UPSEB was guilty of deficiency in service and heclaimed damages of Rs. 15 lakh for the loss caused to him. He also claimedRs. 10, 10,135/- by way of refund of excess charges collected from him for the electricityconsumed. He further claimed interest at 24% on the said amount from January 19,1987 onwards.

Against the allegations, the Electricity Board contended that the exemptionapplied only to units on independent feeders and the unit of the complainant wasbeing supplied power from the mixed feeder and therefore, he was not entitled toexemption from power cuts under the said notification. The opposite party furtherexplained that the consumer was required to pay minimum charges during theperiod of disconnection as per the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in thecase of Modi Steel Ltd. in which the right of the Electricity Board to levy and recoverminimum charges during the period of disconnection was upheld. Further as perthe agreement also, the complainant was obliged to pay minimum charges duringthe period of disconnection.

177


Issue

The main issues involved in the case were

(i) Whether the complaints regarding unjustified and unauthorized powercuts, illegal disconnection and inflated bills prior to September 1989 were barred bylimitation and

(ii) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of Electricity Board on groundof power cuts and disconnection of electricity?

Decision

The National Commission held that the opposite party UPSEB has prima facieexplained how the power cuts from 1984 to 1989 were authorized in terms of theGovernment’s notification of February 1984 on the subject as the complainant wasreceiving power supply from a mixed feeder and not an independent feeder andhence it was not exempt from power cuts. It has also explained how it was justifiedin recovering the minimum charges during the period of disconnection of powersupply.

The National Commission further held that it was not possible for theCommission to go into the allegation whether the disconnection was due toviolation of the instructions regarding power cut at this stage of time and whetherthe bills had been prepared correctly or not. The fact was that the major portion ofthe complaints was belated as they related back to the year 1984-85 which made itextremely difficult to examine the same after elapse of long time. Prime facie,therefore, the U.P. State Electricity Board could not be held guilty of deficiency inservice in relation to the complainant. It would therefore be, appropriate for thecomplainant to agitate his grievance and claim for refund of charges if recovered inexcess and pursue his claim for damages before a Civil Court. The complaint wasthus dismissed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to seek redressthrough a suit in a Civil Court. There was no order as to costs.


178


Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dev Raj Vinayak

I (1995) CPJ 124 (NC)

Facts

The Respondent/Complainant Dev Raj Vinayak, owner of a brick kiln appliedfor an electric connection for running the brick kiln. Two other persons viz., NarainPrashad and Bikhi Chand had also been granted separate and distinct electricconnection with meters in the same premises. The latter two consumers fell intoarrears in the payment of electricity bills, which amounted to Rs. 24,868/-. However,the State Electricity Board disconnected electric supply of the respondent /complainant even though he had made no default whatsoever, in the payment ofelectricity charges so far as his electricity connection was concerned.

Aggrieved by that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before theDistrict Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. The DistrictForum dismissed the complaint as having no merit. Against the order of the DistrictForum an appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission setaside the order of the District Forum and came to the conclusion that theRespondent’s electricity was disconnected unauthorisedly and granted relief to him.Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Electricity Board filed a revisionpetition before the National Commission and contended that the Respondent /Complainant had obtained three electric connections on the same day for the brickkiln, one in his own name and two other electric connections in the name of hisemployees.

Issue

The main issues involved were whether the disconnection of electricity by theBoard due to benami connections in the name of two others in the same premisesbeing used by the complainant, deficiency in services and whether the direction ofthe State Commission to provide relief and compensation to the respondent wasright in accordance with the law.

Decision

The National Commission held that the complainant had obtained threeconnections so as to obviate the payment of line rent. As per the tariff, rent chargeshave to be paid for one single connection of higher capacity, where as by splitting upthe connection into three connections, each falling below the limit for the rent for

179


the line, he was exempted from line rent. The respondent /complainant hadobtained all the three meters on the same day viz. 7.2.1999 and they bore consecutivemeter numbers. All the three meters were installed in the same brick kiln. For thesetwo electric connections, their rent charges were in arrears because of non-clearanceof the dues. Subsequently, the connection of the respondent was also disconnectedas it was in the same premises.

The National Commission held that from the facts stated in the RevisionPetition, it was found that the two connections in the name of two other persons,were benami connections, whose real beneficiary was the respondent /complainant,and that was done to escape the liability for the line rent. Thus National Commissionwas of the view that there has been no deficiency on the part of revision petitioner-Electricity Board and the act of disconnection could not be criticized. It was furtherheld that if the respondent felt that the Electricity Board has unfairly and arbitrarilydisconnected his electric connection, he was free to seek redress in a Civil Court andthis order would not prejudice him in any manner.

Thus the revision petition was allowed and the decision of the State Commissionwas set aside. There was no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.

180


Asstt. Accounts Officer, GT/M.E.D.C./ Central & Anr v.M.R. Murali

I (1995) CPJ 39 (NC)

Facts

Originally the electricity connection provided by the Tamil Nadu State ElectricityBoard stood in the names of four tenants who were in possession of four shops. Atthe instance of the complainant’s father who alleged that the tenants had consentedto transfer connection to his name, the Electricity Board transferred the registrationto the complainant M. R. Murali’s father’s name showing him as the consumer inrespect of particular electricity connections. The tenants raised objection statingthat they had not given their consent for transfer of the connections to the nameof the complainant’s father. Thereupon the Board conducted an investigation toproduce evidence showing that consent in writing had been given by the tenantsfor the transfer of the registration. Since the complainant’s father failed to complywith the said requirement of production of evidence, the Board cancelled its earlierorder sanctioning transfer of connections to the name of the complainant’s father.

After the death of his father, the complainant approached the District Forumwith the grievance that notwithstanding a request having been made by him totransfer the connection in his favour as successor of his father, the Board failed todo so. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission confirmedthe order of the District Forum in appeal. Aggrieved by that, the Board filed a revisionpetition before the National Commission challenging the order of the District Forumas affirmed by the State Commission.

Issue

The main issue raised before the National Commission was whether therewas any deficiency in service on the part of the Board in refusing to transferelectricity connection in the name of the respondent/complainant after the deathof his father and whether the decision of the District Forum as affirmed by theState Commission was in accordance with law.

Decision

The National Commission observed that it was absolutely clear that thecomplainant had no locus Standi at all. The transfer of the connection in the nameof his deceased father had been cancelled by the Board and if he had any case that

181


the said cancellation was bad he should have approached the ordinary Civil Courtand not the Consumer Forum. The grant of relief to the complainant by the DistrictForum and the State Commission was totally without jurisdiction and hence theRevision Petition was allowed. The orders passed by the State Commission and theDistrict Forum were set aside. There was no order as to costs.

Revision Allowed.

182


Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. K.L. Ramani

1995(1) CPR 334(NC)

Facts

The respondent-complainant had filed an application in prescribed form for anew electric connection with the concerned office of MSEB. But no action wastaken by the Board for giving electric supply. The complainant also met the officersof the Board but still there was no response. Aggrieved complainant filed a complaintbefore the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the Board. It wascontended by the Board that the application form was not properly filled, whichcaused delay and the deficiencies in the application were conveyed to thecomplainant on phone. The District Forum came to the conclusion that it was theduty of the officials of MSEB to give guidance to the complainant to removedeficiencies and lacunae found in the application form. As regards some of theofficials, it was observed that they had shown inexcusable negligence and derelictionin performance of their duties and departmental enquiry should be held againstthem, which should be completed within six months from the date of order. It wasfurther directed that the Board should give a new three phase 5 HP electricconnection to the complainant within a period of one month from the date oforder and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,500/- for the loss caused to the complainant.It also threatened action under Section 27 of CPA if directions were not carried out.Appeal against the order of the District Forum was dismissed, confirming the orderof District Forum by a non-speaking order. Revision was filed in the NationalCommission against the order of the State Commission by MSEB.

Issue

The main question was whether the failure to grant electric connection tothe complainant who had not filled a proper application for connection constituteddeficiency in service.

Decision

The National Commission agreed with the observations of the District Forumthat there was delay and harassment of complainant in getting the connectionfrom Board and it was duty of the officers of the Board to have communicated tothe respondent-complainant the deficiencies in his application. Also, that the officersof the Board sat on the application for unduly long time. But it held that the failure

183


to grant electric connection to an applicant who had not filled a proper applicationfor connection did not constitute deficiency in service and the case did not fallwithin jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums under Consumer Protection Act.Further it was beyond the competence of the District Forum to direct an enquiry tobe held against the officers of the Board and that three phase 5 H.P. connection begiven to respondent-complainant.

The National Commission thus allowing the revision petition set aside theorders of the State Commission and the District Forum. There was no order as tocosts.

Revision allowed.

184


Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU) v. Capt. V.K.Ramchandani

1995 (1) CPR 677 (NC)

Facts

Complainant had two electric connections in his farmhouse one for thetubewell and the other for the poultry farm. In October 1998 overhead wires snapped,resulting in disruption of electric supply. The wires were repaired after 33 days andelectric supply was restored in the area. However, complainant’s electric supply wasnot restored. The complainant filed complaint in the State Commission claiming acompensation of rupees two lakh. The DESU contended that the electric connectionwas being misused by the complainant. He had converted his premises fromfarmhouse to an unauthorized colony. Thereby changing the use of the connection.Further, the service lines became accessible to the unauthorized consumers whotapped the lines unauthorisedly resulting in damage to the service line. The StateCommission held that there was no report of misuse or pilferage, DESU had failed toprove misuse. Therefore, the State Commission directed DESU to restore electricconnections within one month from the date of the order. However, the Presidentof the State Commission awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the loss and mental agony, as therewas no evidence of the damages he had suffered. However, the other two memberswere of the opinion that Rs. 10,000/- as compensation was on the lower side andcomplainant was entitled to damages @ of Rs.25,000/- per year i.e. Rs.85,000/- for thethree years during which the electric connection remained disconnected. Againstthe order of the State Commission both the parties went in appeal before theNational Commission.

Issue

Was there any deficiency in service on the part of DESU in disconnecting theelectricity to the farmhouse of the complainant on ground of misuse?

Decision

The National Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant onthe ground that it was barred by limitation and there was no sufficient cause tocondone the delay. On the appeal filed by the DESU the Commission held that therewas not an iota of evidence in support of the contention that no agricultural activitywas being carried out on the poultry farm and it had been converted into an

185


unauthorised colony. The report of the Joint Committee, which found irregularities,was neither placed before the State Commission nor before the NationalCommission. Further from the photograph of the Farm placed on record by thecomplainant, except poultry farm no residential building appeared to have beenconstructed.

Thus the National Commission rejected the contention of misuse and heldthat they did not find any reason why the connections could not be restored. Onthe question of compensation awarded to the complainant by the StateCommission, the National Commission agreed with MCD that the compensationwas on a higher side particularly when there was no evidence of loss. Thecomplainant did not appear in the witness box to state the loss he suffered nor anydocument was produced to support his claim. Therefore, the Commission was ofthe view that the ends of justice would be met if compensation awarded to thecomplainant was limited to Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the appeal by the M.C.D (DESU) waspartly accepted while maintaining the order of the State Commission regardingrestoration of electric connections of the complainant. The amount ofcompensation awarded was thus reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. The parties were directedto bear their own cost in both the appeals.

There was some difference of opinion as regards the compensation amountamong the members of the National Commission. As per Mr. Y. Krishan, Member,compensation of Rs. 85,000/- awarded by State Commission was not excessive. Heaffirmed the majority opinion. In addition he held that DESU should pay Rs. 10,000/- ascosts.

Appeal allowed partly.

186


Annexure

MODEL FORM OF NOTICE, COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND REPLYMODEL FORM-1 NOTICE BEFORE FILING THE COMPLAINT

Name and address.................................................................................................................(of the trader, dealer, firm, company, etc.).................................................... ............................................................(Complete address) IN RE: (Mention the goods/services complained of giving details).................................................................................................................Dear Sir,

This is to bring to your kind notice that 1 had purchased………….............from your............................... for a consideration of Rs……………………………...... paid in cash vide your cashmemo/Receipt/Invoice No....................................................... (or through cheque No ........................... dated ...................drawn on ........................................bank for a sum of Rs ....................

The said goods are suffering from the following defects:(i) ............................................

(ii) ............................................ etc

I have reported the above matter to you several times (give reference of earlierletters, if any) but despite all my pleadings you have not made good the defect inthe goods (ordeficiency in services) which is indeed regrettable and highlyunbusiness like. On account of your aforesaid dereliction of duty and failure andneglect to rectify the same I have suffered losses/incurred expenses........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

(give details)

which you are liable to compensate to me. You are hereby finally called upon to

(i) remove the said defects in the goodsand/or

187


(ii) replace the goods with new goods

and/or(iii) return the price/ charges paid

(iv) pay compensation for financial loss/injury/interest suffered due to yournegligence .................................................................

(give details)

in the sum of Rs ............................................ with interest @.............................. % per annumwithin……………………days of the receipt of this notice failing which 1 shall beconstrained to initiate against you for redressal of my aforesaid grievances andrecovery of the aforesaid amount such proceedings, both civil and criminal asare warranted by law, besides filing a complaint under the statutory provisionsof The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 exclusively at your own risk, cost, respon-sibility and consequences which please note.

Place……………………..Dated............................... Sd/-

.………. . .

188


Model Form –2 -The complaint

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM AT ........................................................ OR

BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT ..................................................... OR

BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION AT NEW DELHIIN RE: COMPLAINT NO ........................ OF 20 ......... IN THE MATTER OF:

(FULL NAME) (DESCRIPTION) (COMPLETE ADDRESS)

............... Complainant

VERSUS

(FULL NAME) (DESCRIPTION) (COMPLETE ADDRESS)................................. Opposite Party/ Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION I2/ SECTION 17/SECTION 21 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

INTRODUCTION

(In this opening paragraph the complainant should give his introduction aswell as that of the opposite party/parties.

TRANSACTION

(In this paragraph complainant should describe the transaction complained of,i.e., particulars and details of goods/ services availed; items of goods/kind and natureof service; date of purchase of goods/availing of service; amount paid as price/con-sideration, full or in part towards the goods/service; Photocopies of the bill/cashmemo/voucher or receipt should be attached and properly marked asAnnexure – A,B,C and so forth or 1,2,3 and so forth.)

189


DEFECT DEFICIENCY

(In this paragraph complainant should explain the grievance, i.e., whether the lossor damage has been caused by some unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practiceadopted by any trader or there is some defect in the goods or there has been deficiencyin service or the trader has charged excessive price for the goods. One should elucidatethe nature of unfair trade practice adopted by the trader, i.e., relating to the quality ofgoods/services; sponsorship; warranty or guarantee for such period promised. The na-ture and extent of defects in goods should be explained and so should the deficiency inservice. In case of excessive price one should specify the details of actual price fixed byor under any law for the time being in force or as set out on goods and their packing vis-a-vis the price charged by the trader. Complaint can also be filed against offer for saleof goods hazardous to life and safety when used. You should narrate your grievanceand rest assured it is being read /heard by compassionate and pragmatic judges. Pho-tocopies of relevant documents must be attached.)

RECTIFICATION

(In this paragraph complainant should highlight what attempts were made by him toset things right, i.e., personal visits or negotiations; communication in writing if any;whether any legal notice was got served and / or whether he has approached any otheragency for redressal like, Civil or Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction; the stage ofits proceedings, its outcome, if any, alongwith copies (certified preferably) of suchproceedings. The nature of response got from the trader when irregularities werebrought to his notice, should also be disclosed here).

OTHER PROVISIONS

(In this paragraph reference may be made to any other law or rules or regulations ofparticular procedure which is applicable to the case and/or which has been violated by

the trader and consumer’s rights under the same. There are incidental statutory obliga-

tions, which traders must fulfil and in case of their failure to do so the case in prima

facie made out and Forum would take cognizance).

EVIDENCE

(In this paragraph complainant should give details of documents and/or witnesses hewill rely upon to substantiate his case. The documents attached as Annexures as statedabove may be incorporated in a proper list and a list of witnesses (if any) may be filedsimilarly).The annexures should be attested as “True Copy”.

190


JURISDICTION

(In this paragraph complainant should liquidate the claim in the complaint, i.e., upto 20lakh; 20 lakh to one crore; or above and set out the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum/State Commission/National Commission, as the case may be. The territorial Jurisdic-tion should be highlighted to obviate any formal objection).

LIMITATION

That the present complaint is being filed within the period prescribed under section24A of the Act.

RELIEF CLAIMED

(In this paragraph complainant should describe the nature of relief he wants to claim.i.e., for removal of defects in goods or deficiency in service; replacement with newgoods; return of the price or charges, etc., paid and/or compensation on account offinancial loss or injury or detriment to his interest occasioned by negligence of theopposite party and elucidate how you have calculated the amount of compensationclaimed).

PRAYER CLAUSE

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Forum/ Commission maykindly be pleased to ....................................................................... (Details of reliefs which complainant wantsthe Court to grant)

Place: ................................... Dated: ...................................

Complainant Through ................................... (Advocate or Consumer Association, etc.)

191


Verification.I, ............................. the complainant above named, do hereby solemnly verify that the con-tents of my above complaint are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is falseand nothing material has been concealed therein. Verified this .............................. day of............................ 20 ...... at .......... Complainant.

Note: Although it is not compulsory, complainant may file an affidavit in support of the complaintwhich adds to the truth and veracity of allegations and gives credibility to the cause. It need notbe on a Stamp paper but one should get it attested from an Oath Commissioner appointed by aHigh Court. The format is just as simple.

192


Model Form –3- Affidavit in support of the complaint

BEFORE THE HON’BLE…………………..IN RE: COMPLAINT NO………….OF 20……………..INTHE MATTER OF:

…………………………………………………………............................................................................................. Complainant

...................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................... Opposite party

AFFIDAVITAffidavit ofShri…………………………………………….S/o. Shri ..................................aged………………………………years, resident of .......................................................................................................................................................

(1) That I am complainant in the above case, thoroughly conversant with thefacts and circumstances of the present case and am competent to swear thisaffidavit.

(2) That the facts contained in my accompanying complaint, the contents of whichhave not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be read as an integralpart of this affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.

DeponentVerification:

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of myabove affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothingmaterial has been concealed therein.Verified this…………………………day of………………….. 20…………. at……….

Deponent

193


Model Form –4- Reply by the trader to the complaint

BEFORE THE HON’BLE …………………………………….. THE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL FORUM/ COMMISSION AT………………………

IN RE: COMPLAINT NO…………………….OF 20……………………..

IN THE MATTER OF:

...........................................................................................................................................................................ComplainantVERSUS

........................................................................................................................................................................Opposite Party

DATE OF HEARING……………………

194


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS TO THECOMPLAINT OF THE COMPLAINANT

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:Preliminary Objections

1. That the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainablein law and is liable to be dismissed as such. The transaction question was withoutany consideration and free of charge.

2. That this Hon’ble Forum/ Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudi-cate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumerdispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Pro-tection Act,1986, hereinafter called the said Act and is exclusively triable by a CivilCourt and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily on this scorealone.

3. That the dispute raised by the complainant in the present complaint is manifestlyoutside the purview of the said Act and in any event, the Act is in addition to and notin derogation of the provisions of the.............. Act. The proceedings initiated by thecomplainant under the Act are honest, null and void and without jurisdiction.

4. That the definitions of ‘Complainant’, ‘Complaint’ ‘Consumer Dispute’ and ‘Service’,as defined in Section 2(1) of the said Act do not cover the claims arising under thepresent dispute and that from the aforesaid definitions, the complainant is not’consumer’ and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a ‘consumerdispute’.

5. That the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law toharass and blackmail the answering respondent.

6. That the complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings.7. That the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party and is

liable to be dismissed on this score alone.8 . That the complainant has already filed a Civil Suit for ................. in a court of competent

jurisdiction which is pending disposal in the Court of ............. and the present com-plaint has become infructuous.

9. That the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. 10. That this Hon’ble Forum/Commission has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in

as much as the amount involved in the subject-matter exceeds/is less than the limitprescribed by Section 11(1) Section 17(1)(a)(i)/Section 21(a)(i) of the Act.

11. That the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissedunder Section 26 of the Act.

195


12. That the present complaint has not been verified in accordance with law.

On Merits:In these paragraphs respondent must reply each and every allegation made and

contention raised by the complainant, factual and legal as well. In case one has alreadymade good the defect or deficiency, elucidate steps taken. One may have, inter alia,following goods defences as well.1. That the transaction entered between the parties to the above dispute is a com-

mercial one and the complainant cannot claim any relief from this authority in asmuch as .................................................................................................................(give details)

2. That the complainant had purchased the goods as a seller/retailer/distributor, etc.,for consideration of resale and as such is barred from moving this Hon’ble Forum/Commission for the alleged defect/deficiency etc. in as much as. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(give details)

3. That the complainant has already availed the warranty period during which theanswering respondent has repaired/replaced the goods in question. The complain-ant is thus legally stopped from enforcing this complaint or to take benefit of hisown wrong.

4. That the present complaint is an exaggeration beyond proportion despite the factthat the complainant is himself responsible for delay and laches in as much as hehas on several occasions changed his option for class of goods/type of allotmentscheme of flats/model of vehicle, etc ........................................................................................................................................(give details)

5. That the answering respondent is well within his rights to charge extra price forthe subject-matter of the above dispute in as much as time was not the essence ofdelivery thereof. The complainant is liable to pay the increased price w.e.f ............ onaccount of escalation due to excise duty/budgetary provisions etc. in as much as…..(give details)

6. That the complainant has accepted the goods and/or service towards repair/re-placement etc. without protest and the present complaint is merely an afterthought.

7. That without prejudice the answering respondent as a gesture of goodwill is pre-pared to.............................................................................................................................................. (give details of rectification,if any, which can be done in case of minor or tolerable problems to avoid harass-ment to consumer and litigation problems)

The allegations of defect/default/negligence and/or deficiency in service are whollymisconceived, groundless, false, untenable in law besides being extraneous and

196


irrelevant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter underreference.Prayer clause with all the submissions made therein is absolutely wrong and isemphatically denied. Complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and isnot entitled Model Form costs.

Sd/-(Opposite Party)

Place: ......................Dated: ...................... through

(Advocate) VerificationI, .................... the above named respondent do hereby verify that the contents of paras ................to .................... of the written statement on merits are true and correct to my knowledge.While paras .............................. to ............ of preliminary objections and ................ to ......... of reply onmerits are true to my information, belief and legal advice received by me and believedto be true while the last para is prayer to this Hon’ble Court. Verified at ........................ this.......................day of................. 20 .............

Sd/-

(Opposite party)

CASE LAWS ON ELECTRICITY - consumereducation.in · CASE LAWS ON ELECTRICITY SAPNA CHADAH Assistant...

Documents

Transcript of CASE LAWS ON ELECTRICITY - consumereducation.in · CASE LAWS ON ELECTRICITY SAPNA CHADAH Assistant...